SB 433: Classified school and community college employees: disciplinary hearings: appeals: impartial third-party hearing officers.
- Session Year: 2023-2024
- House: Senate
- Latest Version Date: 2023-09-14
Current Status:
Failed
(2024-01-25: Stricken from file.)
Introduced
In Committee
First Chamber
In Committee
Second Chamber
Enacted
What does this bill do?
This bill lets permanent classified employees (non‑teaching staff), except peace officers, in school districts, community college districts, county offices of education, and related joint powers agencies appeal disciplinary actions to an impartial third‑party hearing officer who is jointly chosen from a list of seven arbitrators and paid by the district. It requires districts to give employees at least 30 days after written notice of the charges to request a hearing. Hearing officers’ decisions can be reviewed by courts under the rules for arbitration awards, and allegations of egregious misconduct involving a minor must be decided by a judge.
The summary is provided by generative AI which can make mistakes. For original language, please view the details in the table below.
Existing law requires the governing board of a school district to employ persons for positions not requiring certification qualifications and the governing board of a community college district to employ persons for positions that are not academic positions. Existing law requires the governing board of a school district or community college district to classify those employees and positions and requires that they be known as the classified service. Existing law requires the governing board of a school district or community college district to prescribe written rules and regulations governing the personnel management of the classified service whereby classified employees are designated as permanent employees after serving a prescribed period of probation. Existing law subjects a permanent classified employee to disciplinary action only for cause, as prescribed by rule or regulation of the governing board of the school district or community college district. Existing law requires the governing board of a school district or community college district to adopt rules of procedure for disciplinary proceedings that contain a provision for informing the employee by written notice of the specific charges against the employee, a statement of the employees right to a hearing on those charges, and the time within which the hearing may be requested that shall not be less than 5 days after service of notice to the employee, as provided.
This bill would instead require the governing board of a school district or community college district to adopt rules of procedure for disciplinary proceedings authorizing the employee to request a hearing within a minimum of 30 days after service of notice of the specific charges to the employee, as provided.
Existing law authorizes the governing board of a school district or community college district to enter into a collective bargaining agreement with an employee organization, as specified. Existing law authorizes the governing board of a school district or community college district to delegate its authority to determine whether sufficient cause exists for disciplinary action against a classified employee, excluding a peace officer, to an impartial third-party hearing officer, pursuant to the terms of the collective bargaining agreement, as provided.
Existing law establishes standards for arbitration, and requires a court to vacate an arbitration award if the court determines, among other things, that there was corruption in any of the arbitrators or the rights of a party were substantially prejudiced by misconduct of a neutral arbitrator.
This bill would authorize a permanent classified employee of a school district, excluding a peace officer, to appeal disciplinary action, as provided, to an impartial third-party hearing officer, paid by the school district and jointly selected by the district and the employee or their employee organization from a list of 7 arbitrators obtained by the parties from the California State Mediation and Conciliation Service, unless the employee organization and the school district enter into an agreement providing an alternative method of appealing disciplinary action or an alternative method of selecting a third-party hearing officer. If a permanent classified employee of a community college district requests a hearing on the charges lodged against the employee, the bill would require an impartial third-party hearing officer, paid for by the community college district and jointly selected by the district and the employee or their employee organization from a list of 7 arbitrators obtained by the parties from the California State Mediation and Conciliation Service, to determine whether sufficient cause exists for disciplinary action against the permanent classified employee of the community college district, excluding a peace officer, unless the employee organization and the community college district enter into an agreement providing an alternative method of determining cause or an alternative method of selecting a third-party hearing officer. The bill would make the impartial third-party hearing officers decision subject to judicial review pursuant to the above-described standards of review of arbitration awards, as provided. The bill would require the court, for judicial review of an impartial third-party hearing officers decision for disciplinary action by a community college district, to exercise independent judgment on the evidence and for the hearing to be set at the earliest possible date and take precedence over all other cases, except as specified.
The Joint Exercise of Powers Act authorizes 2 or more public agencies, by agreement, to form a joint powers authority to exercise any power common to the contracting parties, as specified. Existing law extends certain employment rules applicable to classified employees of school districts to classified employees of joint powers authorities consisting of 2 or more school districts, as provided, including the rule that a permanent classified employee may be subject to disciplinary action only for cause, as prescribed by rule or regulation of the governing board. Existing law also extends certain employment rules, including the rule related to disciplinary action, to classified employees employed by a county superintendent of schools.
This bill would extend to the classified employees of all joint powers authorities that include a school district, and explicitly extend to the classified employees employed by a county superintendent of schools, the above-described authorization for a permanent classified employee, excluding a peace officer, to appeal disciplinary action, as provided, to an impartial third-party hearing officer. The bill also would extend to the classified employees of all joint powers authorities that include a community college district the above-described requirement that an impartial third-party hearing officer determine whether sufficient cause exists for disciplinary action against a permanent classified employee that requests a hearing on the charges, as provided.
Existing law requires the governing board of a school district to delegate its authority to a judge, as defined, to determine whether sufficient cause exists for disciplinary action against a classified employee involving allegations of egregious misconduct and involving a minor, as provided.
This bill would additionally require an impartial third-party hearing officer to delegate its authority to a judge to determine whether sufficient cause exists for disciplinary action against a classified employee involving allegations of egregious misconduct and involving a minor, as provided.
To the extent the bill imposes additional obligations on school districts, community college districts, and county offices of education, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Existing law requires the governing board of a school district to employ persons for positions not requiring certification qualifications and the governing board of a community college district to employ persons for positions that are not academic positions. Existing law requires the governing board of a school district or community college district to classify those employees and positions and requires that they be known as the classified service. Existing law requires the governing board of a school district or community college district to prescribe written rules and regulations governing the personnel management of the classified service whereby classified employees are designated as permanent employees after serving a prescribed period of probation. Existing law subjects a permanent classified employee to disciplinary action only for cause, as prescribed by rule or regulation of the governing board of the school district or community college district. Existing law requires the governing board of a school district to adopt rules of procedure for disciplinary proceedings that contain a provision for informing the employee by written notice of the specific charges against the employee, a statement of the employees right to a hearing on those charges, and the time within which the hearing may be requested that shall not be less than 5 days after service of notice to the employee, as provided.
This bill would instead require the governing board of a school district to adopt rules of procedure authorizing the employee to request a hearing within 30 days after service of notice of the specific charges to the employee, as provided.
Existing law authorizes the governing board of a school district or community college district to enter into a collective bargaining agreement with an employee organization, as specified. Existing law authorizes the governing board of a school district or community college district to delegate its authority to determine whether sufficient cause exists for disciplinary action against a classified employee, excluding a peace officer, to an impartial third-party hearing officer, pursuant to the terms of the collective bargaining agreement, as provided.
Existing law establishes standards for arbitration, and requires a court to vacate an arbitration award if the court determines, among other things, that there was corruption in any of the arbitrators or the rights of a party were substantially prejudiced by misconduct of a neutral arbitrator.
This bill would authorize a permanent classified employee of a school district, excluding a peace officer, to appeal disciplinary action, as provided, to an impartial third-party hearing officer, paid by the school district and jointly selected by the district and the employee or their employee organization from a list of 7 arbitrators obtained by the parties from the California State Mediation and Conciliation Service, unless the employee organization and the school district enter into an agreement providing an alternative method of appealing disciplinary action or an alternative method of selecting a third-party hearing officer. If a permanent classified employee of a community college district requests a hearing on the charges lodged against the employee, the bill would require an impartial third-party hearing officer, paid for by the community college district and jointly selected by the district and the employee or their employee organization from a list of 7 arbitrators obtained by the parties from the California State Mediation and Conciliation Service, to determine whether sufficient cause exists for disciplinary action against the permanent classified employee of the community college district, excluding a peace officer, unless the employee organization and the community college district enter into an agreement providing an alternative method of determining cause or an alternative method of selecting a third-party hearing officer. To the extent the bill imposes additional obligations on school districts and community college districts, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would make the impartial third-party hearing officers decision subject to judicial review pursuant to the above-described standards of review of arbitration awards, as provided. The bill would require the court, for judicial review of an impartial third-party hearing officers decision for disciplinary action by a community college district, to exercise independent judgment on the evidence and for the hearing to be set at the earliest possible date and take precedence over all over other cases, except as specified.
The Joint Exercise of Powers Act authorizes 2 or more public agencies, by agreement, to form a joint powers authority to exercise any power common to the contracting parties, as specified. Existing law extends certain employment rules applicable to classified employees of school districts to classified employees of joint powers authorities consisting of 2 or more school districts, as provided, including the rule that a permanent classified employee may be subject to disciplinary action only for cause, as prescribed by rule or regulation of the governing board. Existing law also extends certain employment rules, including the rule related to disciplinary action, to classified employees employed by a county superintendent of schools.
This bill would extend to the classified employees of all joint powers authorities that include a school district, and explicitly extend to the classified employees employed by a county superintendent of schools, the above-described authorization for a permanent classified employee, excluding a peace officer, to appeal disciplinary action, as provided, to an impartial third-party hearing officer. The bill also would extend to the classified employees of all joint powers authorities that include a community college district the above-described requirement that an impartial third-party hearing officer determine whether sufficient cause exists for disciplinary action against a permanent classified employee that requests a hearing on the charges, as provided. To the extent the bill imposes additional obligations on county offices of education, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
Existing law requires the governing board of a school district to delegate its authority to a judge, as defined, to determine whether sufficient cause exists for disciplinary action against a classified employee involving allegations of egregious misconduct and involving a minor, as provided.
This bill would additionally require an impartial third-party hearing officer to delegate its authority to a judge to determine whether sufficient cause exists for disciplinary action against a classified employee involving allegations of egregious misconduct and involving a minor, as provided.
To the extent the bill imposes additional obligations on school districts, community college districts, and county offices of education, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Existing law requires the governing board of a school district to employ persons for positions not requiring certification qualifications and the governing board of a community college district to employ persons for positions that are not academic positions. Existing law requires the governing board of a school district or community college district to classify those employees and positions and requires that they be known as the classified service. Existing law requires the governing board of a school district or community college district to prescribe written rules and regulations governing the personnel management of the classified service whereby classified employees are designated as permanent employees after serving a prescribed period of probation. Existing law subjects a permanent classified employee to disciplinary action only for cause, as prescribed by rule or regulation of the governing board of the school district or community college district.
Existing law authorizes the governing board of a school district or community college district to enter into a collective bargaining agreement with an employee organization, as specified. Existing law authorizes the governing board of a school district or community college district to delegate its authority to determine whether sufficient cause exists for disciplinary action against a classified employee, excluding a peace officer, to an impartial third-party hearing officer, pursuant to the terms of the collective bargaining agreement, as provided.
Existing law establishes standards for arbitration, and requires a court to vacate an arbitration award if the court determines, among other things, that there was corruption in any of the arbitrators or the rights of a party were substantially prejudiced by misconduct of a neutral arbitrator.
This bill would authorize a permanent classified employee, employee of a school district, excluding a peace officer, to appeal disciplinary action, as provided, to an impartial third-party hearing officer, paid by the school district or community college district and jointly selected by the district and the employee or their employee organization, organization from a list of 7 arbitrators obtained by the parties from the California State Mediation and Conciliation Service, unless the employee organization and the school district or community college district enter into an agreement providing an alternative method of appealing disciplinary action. action or an alternative method of selecting a third-party hearing officer. If a permanent classified employee of a community college district requests a hearing on the charges lodged against the employee, the bill would require an impartial third-party hearing officer, paid for by the community college district and jointly selected by the district and the employee or their employee organization from a list of 7 arbitrators obtained by the parties from the California State Mediation and Conciliation Service, to determine whether sufficient cause exists for disciplinary action against the permanent classified employee of the community college district, excluding a peace officer, unless the employee organization and the community college district enter into an agreement providing an alternative method of determining cause or an alternative method of selecting a third-party hearing officer. To the extent the bill imposes additional obligations on school districts and community college districts, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would make the impartial third-party hearing officers decision subject to judicial review pursuant to the above-described standards of review of arbitration awards, as provided. The bill would require the court, for judicial review of an impartial third-party hearing officers decision for disciplinary action by a community college district, to exercise independent judgment on the evidence and for the hearing to be set at the earliest possible date and take precedence over all over cases, except as specified.
The Joint Exercise of Powers Act authorizes 2 or more public agencies, by agreement, to form a joint powers authority to exercise any power common to the contracting parties, as specified. Existing law extends certain employment rules applicable to classified employees of school districts to classified employees of joint powers authorities consisting of 2 or more school districts, as provided, including the rule that a permanent classified employee may be subject to disciplinary action only for cause, as prescribed by rule or regulation of the governing board. Existing law also extends certain employment rules, including the rule related to disciplinary action, to classified employees employed by a county superintendent of schools.
This bill would extend to the classified employees of all joint powers authorities that include a school district or a community college district, and explicitly extend to the classified employees employed by a county superintendent of schools, the above-described authorization for a permanent classified employee, excluding a peace officer, to appeal disciplinary action, as provided, to an impartial third-party hearing officer. The bill also would extend to the classified employees of all joint powers authorities that include a community college district the above-described requirement that an impartial third-party hearing officer determine whether sufficient cause exists for disciplinary action against a permanent classified employee that requests a hearing on the charges, as provided. To the extent the bill imposes additional obligations on county offices of education, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
Existing law requires the governing board of a school district to delegate its authority to a judge, as defined, to determine whether sufficient cause exists for disciplinary action against a classified employee involving allegations of egregious misconduct and involving a minor, as provided.
This bill would additionally require an impartial third-party hearing officer to delegate its authority to a judge to determine whether sufficient cause exists for disciplinary action against a classified employee involving allegations of egregious misconduct and involving a minor, as provided.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Existing law requires the governing board of a school district to employ persons for positions not requiring certification qualifications and the governing board of a community college district to employ persons for positions that are not academic positions. Existing law requires the governing board of a school district or community college district to classify those employees and positions and requires that they be known as the classified service. Existing law requires the governing board of a school district or community college district to prescribe written rules and regulations governing the personnel management of the classified service whereby classified employees are designated as permanent employees after serving a prescribed period of probation. Existing law subjects a permanent classified employee to disciplinary action only for cause, as prescribed by rule or regulation of the governing board of the school district or community college district.
Existing law authorizes the governing board of a school district or community college district to enter into a collective bargaining agreement with an employee organization, as specified. Existing law authorizes the governing board of a school district or community college district to delegate its authority to determine whether sufficient cause exists for disciplinary action against a classified employee, excluding a peace officer, to an impartial third-party hearing officer, pursuant to the terms of the collective bargaining agreement, as provided.
Existing law establishes standards for arbitration, and requires a court to vacate an arbitration award if the court determines, among other things, that there was corruption in any of the arbitrators or the rights of a party were substantially prejudiced by misconduct of a neutral arbitrator.
This bill would require authorize a permanent classified employee, excluding a peace officer, to appeal disciplinary action, as provided, to an impartial third-party hearing officer, paid by the school district or community college district and jointly selected by the district and the employee or their employee organization, to determine whether sufficient cause exists for disciplinary action against a permanent classified employee, excluding a peace officer, unless the employee organization and the school district or community college district enter into an agreement providing an alternative method of determining cause. appealing disciplinary action. To the extent the bill imposes additional obligations on school districts and community college districts, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would make the impartial third-party hearing officers decision subject to judicial review pursuant to the above-described standards of review of arbitration awards, as provided. For a peace officer, the bill would require the governing board of the school district or community college district to make the determination of cause for discipline.
The Joint Exercise of Powers Act authorizes 2 or more public agencies, by agreement, to form a joint powers authority to exercise any power common to the contracting parties, as specified. Existing law extends certain employment rules applicable to classified employees of school districts to classified employees of joint powers authorities consisting of 2 or more school districts, as provided, including the rule that a permanent classified employee may be subject to disciplinary action only for cause, as prescribed by rule or regulation of the governing board. Existing law also extends certain employment rules, including the rule related to disciplinary action, to classified employees employed by a county superintendent of schools.
This bill would extend to the classified employees of all joint powers authorities that include a school district or a community college district, and explicitly extend to the classified employees employed by a county superintendent of schools, the above-described requirement that authorization for a permanent classified employee, excluding a peace officer, to appeal disciplinary action, as provided, to an impartial third-party hearing officer determine whether sufficient cause exists for disciplinary action against a permanent employee, as provided. officer. To the extent the bill imposes additional obligations on county offices of education, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
Existing law requires the governing board of a school district to delegate its authority to a judge, as defined, to determine whether sufficient cause exists for disciplinary action against a classified employee involving allegations of egregious misconduct and involving a minor, as provided.
This bill would additionally require an impartial third-party hearing officer to delegate its authority to a judge to determine whether sufficient cause exists for disciplinary action against a classified employee involving allegations of egregious misconduct and involving a minor, as provided.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Existing law requires the governing board of a school district to employ persons for positions not requiring certification qualifications and the governing board of a community college district to employ persons for positions that are not academic positions. Existing law requires the governing board of a school district or community college district to classify those employees and positions and requires that they be known as the classified service. Existing law requires the governing board of a school district or community college district to prescribe written rules and regulations governing the personnel management of the classified service whereby classified employees are designated as permanent employees after serving a prescribed period of probation. Existing law subjects a permanent classified employee to disciplinary action only for cause, as prescribed by rule or regulation of the governing board of the school district or community college district.
Existing law authorizes the governing board of a school district or community college district to enter into a collective bargaining agreement with an employee organization, as specified. Existing law authorizes the governing board of a school district or community college district to delegate its authority to determine whether sufficient cause exists for disciplinary action against a classified employee, excluding a peace officer, to an impartial third-party hearing officer, pursuant to the terms of the collective bargaining agreement, as provided.
Existing law establishes standards for arbitration, and requires a court to vacate an arbitration award if the court determines, among other things, that there was corruption in any of the arbitrators or the rights of a party were substantially prejudiced by misconduct of a neutral arbitrator.
This bill would require an impartial third-party hearing officer, paid by the school district or community college district and jointly selected by the district and the employee or their exclusive representative, employee organization, to determine whether sufficient cause exists for disciplinary action against a permanent classified employee, excluding a peace officer, unless the exclusive representative employee organization and the school district or community college district enter into a collective bargaining an agreement providing an alternative method of determining cause. To the extent the bill imposes additional obligations on school districts and community college districts, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would make the impartial third-party hearing officers decision subject to judicial review pursuant to the above-described standards of review of arbitration awards, as provided. For a peace officer, the bill would require the governing board of the school district or community college district to make the determination of cause for discipline.
The Joint Exercise of Powers Act authorizes 2 or more public agencies, by agreement, to form a joint powers authority to exercise any power common to the contracting parties, as specified. Existing law extends certain employment rules applicable to classified employees of school districts to classified employees of joint powers authorities consisting of 2 or more school districts, as provided, including the rule that a permanent classified employee may be subject to disciplinary action only for cause, as prescribed by rule or regulation of the governing board. Existing law also extends certain employment rules, including the rule related to disciplinary action, to classified employees employed by a county superintendent of schools.
This bill would extend to the classified employees of all joint powers authorities that include a school district or a community college district, and explicitly extend to the classified employees employed by a county superintendent of schools, the above-described requirement that an impartial third-party hearing officer determine whether sufficient cause exists for disciplinary action against a permanent employee, as provided. To the extent the bill imposes additional obligations on county offices of education, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
Existing law requires the governing board of a school district to delegate its authority to a judge, as defined, to determine whether sufficient cause exists for disciplinary action against a classified employee involving allegations of egregious misconduct and involving a minor, as provided.
This bill would additionally require an impartial third-party hearing officer to delegate its authority to a judge to determine whether sufficient cause exists for disciplinary action against a classified employee involving allegations of egregious misconduct and involving a minor, as provided.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Existing law requires the governing board of a school district to employ persons for positions not requiring certification qualifications and the governing board of a community college district to employ persons for positions that are not academic positions. Existing law requires the governing board of a school district or community college district to classify those employees and positions and requires that they be known as the classified service. Existing law requires the governing board of a school district or community college district to prescribe written rules and regulations governing the personnel management of the classified service whereby classified employees are designated as permanent employees after serving a prescribed period of probation. Existing law subjects a permanent classified employee to disciplinary action only for cause, as prescribed by rule or regulation of the governing board of the school district or community college district.
Existing law authorizes the governing board of a school district or community college district to enter into a collective bargaining agreement with an employee organization, as specified. Existing law authorizes the governing board of a school district or community college district to delegate its authority to determine whether sufficient cause exists for disciplinary action against a classified employee, excluding a peace officer, to an impartial third-party hearing officer, pursuant to the terms of the collective bargaining agreement, as provided.
This bill would require an impartial third-party hearing officer, paid by the school district or community college district and jointly selected by the district and the employee or their exclusive representative, to determine whether sufficient cause exists for disciplinary action against a permanent employee, excluding a peace officer, unless the exclusive representative and the school district or community college district enter into a collective bargaining agreement providing an alternative method of determining cause. To the extent the bill imposes additional obligations on school districts and community college districts, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. For a peace officer, the bill would require the governing board of the school district or community college district to make the determination of cause for discipline.
Existing law requires the governing board of a school district to delegate its authority to a judge, as defined, to determine whether sufficient cause exists for disciplinary action against a classified employee involving allegations of egregious misconduct and involving a minor, as provided.
This bill would additionally require an impartial third-party hearing officer to delegate its authority to a judge to determine whether sufficient cause exists for disciplinary action against a classified employee involving allegations of egregious misconduct and involving a minor, as provided.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Each person employed by a county superintendent of schools in a position not requiring certification qualifications and whose salary is paid from the county school service fund shall be employed in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 44000) and Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 45100) of Part 25 of Division 3 of Title 2, including Section 45113, and Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 87000) and Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 88000) of Part 51 of Division 7 of Title 3, including Section 88013.
SEC. 2.Section 45113 of the Education Code is amended to read:45113.(a)The governing board of a school district shall prescribe written rules and regulations governing the personnel management of the classified service. These written rules and regulations shall be printed and made available to employees in the classified service, the public, and those concerned with the administration of this section, whereby these employees are designated as permanent employees of the school district after serving a prescribed period of probation that shall not exceed six months or 130 days of paid service, whichever is longer. However, a full-time peace officer or public safety dispatcher employed by a school district operating a dispatch center certified by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training, to be designated as a permanent employee of the school district, shall serve a probationary period of not less than one year of paid service from their date of appointment to that full-time position. A permanent employee who accepts a promotion and fails to complete the probationary period for that promotional position, shall be employed in the classification from which the employee was promoted.
(b)An employee designated as a permanent employee shall be subject to disciplinary action only for cause as prescribed by rule or regulation of the governing board of the school district, but the governing boards determination of the sufficiency of the cause for disciplinary action shall be conclusive, except as set forth elsewhere in this section.
(c)The governing board of a school district shall adopt rules of procedure for disciplinary proceedings that shall contain a provision for informing the employee by written notice of the specific charges against the employee, a statement of the employees right to a hearing on those charges, and the time within which the hearing may be requested that shall be not less than 30 days after service of the notice to the employee, and a card or paper, the signing and filing of which shall constitute a demand for hearing, and a denial of all charges. The burden of proof shall remain with the governing board of the school district, and any rule or regulation to the contrary is void.
(d)Disciplinary action shall not be taken for any cause that arose before the employees becoming permanent, nor for any cause that arose more than two years preceding the date of the filing of the notice of cause unless the cause was concealed or not disclosed by the employee when it could be reasonably assumed that the employee should have disclosed the facts to the employing school district.
(e)This section shall not be construed to prohibit the governing board of a school district, pursuant to the terms of an agreement with an employee organization under Chapter 10.7 (commencing with Section 3540) of Division 4 of Title 1 of the Government Code, from delegating its authority to determine whether sufficient cause exists for disciplinary action, as described in subdivision (b), against classified employees, excluding peace officers as defined in Section 830.32 of the Penal Code, to an impartial third-party hearing officer. However, the governing board of the school district shall retain authority to review the determination under the standards set forth in Section 1286.2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(f)(1)Except as specified in paragraph (2), a permanent employee who timely requests a hearing on charges against the employee shall not be suspended without pay, suspended with a reduction in pay, demoted with a reduction in pay, or dismissed before a decision is rendered after the hearing, unless the governing board, or an impartial third-party hearing officer provided pursuant to the terms of an agreement with an employee organization under Chapter 10.7 (commencing with Section 3540) of Division 4 of Title 1 of the Government Code, finds that at the time discipline was imposed at the conclusion of the review process specified in Skelly v. State Personnel Bd. (1975) 15 Cal.3d 194, the employer demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the employee engaged in criminal misconduct, misconduct that presents a risk of harm to pupils, staff, or property, or committed habitual violations of the districts policies or regulations.
(2)The school district may stop paying a permanent employee before a decision is rendered after 30 calendar days from the date the hearing is requested.
(3)To the extent that this subdivision conflicts with a provision of a collective bargaining agreement entered into by a public school employer and an exclusive bargaining representative before January 1, 2023, pursuant to Chapter 10.7 (commencing with Section 3540) of Division 4 of Title 1 of the Government Code, this subdivision shall not apply to the school district until the expiration or renewal of that collective bargaining agreement.
(g)(1)An employee, excluding a peace officer as defined in Section 830.32 of the Penal Code, disciplined pursuant to the process described in subdivision (b) may appeal that disciplinary action to an impartial third-party hearing officer paid by the school district and jointly selected by the district and the employee or their employee organization, as that term is defined in subdivision (d) of Section 3540.1 of the Government Code, unless the employee organization and the district have entered into an agreement pursuant to Chapter 10.7 (commencing with Section 3540) of Division 4 of Title 1 of the Government Code providing an alternative method of appealing disciplinary action. An employee exercising this appeal right shall notify the governing board, in writing, within 30 days of receiving the initial disciplinary decision described in subdivision (b).
(2)The impartial third-party hearing officers determination shall be subject to judicial review pursuant to the standards of subdivision (a) of Section 1286.2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(3)This subdivision shall also apply to those classified employees that are employed by any entity, including a regional occupational center or program, created or established by one or more school districts pursuant to statute, exercising any joint power pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 6500) of Chapter 5 of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code, or as otherwise conferred by law upon school districts.
(4)For purposes of this subdivision, the following definitions apply:
(A)Disciplinary action means dismissals and suspensions of classified employees and demotions of nonsupervisory classified employees, and does not include reprimands or warnings whether verbal or written.
(B)Hearing officer means an arbitrator selected by striking from a list of seven arbitrators to be obtained by the parties from the California State Mediation and Conciliation Service, unless the parties agree upon another method of selecting a hearing officer.
(h)(1)A governing board of a school district or an impartial third-party hearing officer, as applicable, shall delegate its authority to a judge, as defined in Section 44990, to determine whether sufficient cause exists for disciplinary action against a classified employee involving allegations of egregious misconduct, as defined in Section 44932, and involving a minor, as defined in Section 44990. The judges ruling shall be binding upon all parties.
(2)A judge authorized under this subdivision to conduct a hearing involving allegations as described in Section 44010 or 44011, or as described in Sections 11165.2 to 11165.6, inclusive, of the Penal Code, shall conduct that hearing in accordance with Article 3.3 (commencing with Section 44990) of Chapter 4 and Section 49077.
(3)The term representative of the respondent, within the meaning of Article 3.3 (commencing with Section 44990) of Chapter 4, shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, an exclusive labor representative.
(i)This section applies only to school districts not incorporating the merit system as outlined in Article 6 (commencing with Section 45240).
SEC. 3.Section 88013 of the Education Code is amended to read:88013.(a)The governing board of a community college district shall prescribe written rules and regulations governing the personnel management of the classified service. These written rules and regulations shall be printed and made available to employees in the classified service, the public, and those concerned with the administration of this section, whereby these employees are, except as provided in Section 72411, designated as permanent employees of the district after serving a prescribed period of probation that shall not exceed six months or 130 days of paid service, whichever is longer. However, for a full-time peace officer or public safety dispatcher employed by a district operating a dispatch center certified by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training to be designated as a permanent employee of the district, they shall serve a probationary period of not less than one year of paid service from their date of appointment to that full-time position. A permanent employee who accepts a promotion and fails to complete the probationary period for that promotional classification, shall be employed in the position from which the employee was promoted.
(b)An employee designated as a permanent employee shall be subject to disciplinary action only for cause as prescribed by rule or regulation of the governing board.
(c)The governing board shall adopt rules of procedure for disciplinary proceedings that shall contain a provision for informing the employee by written notice of the specific charges against the employee, a statement of the employees right to a hearing on those charges, and the 30 days within which the hearing may be requested after service of the notice to the employee, and a card or paper, the signing and filing of which shall constitute a demand for hearing, and a denial of all charges. The burden of proof shall remain with the governing board, and any rule or regulation to the contrary shall be void.
(d)Disciplinary action shall not be taken for any cause that arose before the employee became permanent, or for any cause that arose more than two years preceding the date of the filing of the notice of cause, unless the cause was concealed or not disclosed by the employee when it could be reasonably assumed that the employee should have disclosed the facts to the employing district.
(e)(1)If an employee, excluding a peace officer as defined in Section 830.32 of the Penal Code, requests a hearing pursuant to subdivision (c), an impartial third-party hearing officer paid by the community college district and jointly selected by the district and the employee or their employee organization, as defined in subdivision (d) of Section 3540.1 of the Government Code, shall preside over the hearing and provide a determination as to the outcome of the disciplinary action.
(2)The impartial third-party hearing officers determination shall be subject to judicial review, on petition of either the governing board or the employee, pursuant to the standards of subdivision (a) of Section 1286.2 of the Code of Civil Procedure and in the same manner as a decision made by an administrative law judge under Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 11500) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code. The court, on review, shall exercise its independent judgment on the evidence. The proceeding shall be set for hearing at the earliest possible date and shall take precedence over all other cases, except older matters of the same character and matters to which special precedence is given by law.
(3)This subdivision shall also apply to those classified employees that are employed by any entity created or established by one or more community college districts pursuant to statute, exercising any joint power pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 6500) of Chapter 5 of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code, or as otherwise conferred by law upon community college districts.
(4)To the extent that this subdivision conflicts with a provision of a collective bargaining agreement entered into by a public school employer and an exclusive bargaining representative before January 1, 2024, pursuant to Chapter 10.7 (commencing with Section 3540) of Division 4 of Title 1 of the Government Code, this subdivision shall not apply to the community college district until the expiration or renewal of that collective bargaining agreement.
(5)For purposes of this subdivision, the following definitions apply:
(A)Disciplinary action does not include verbal or written reprimands or verbal or written warnings.
(B)Hearing officer means an arbitrator selected by striking from a list of seven arbitrators to be obtained by the parties from the California State Mediation and Conciliation Service, unless the parties agree upon another method of selecting a hearing officer.
(f)(1)Except as specified in paragraph (2), a permanent employee who timely requests a hearing on charges against the employee shall not be suspended without pay, suspended with a reduction in pay, demoted with a reduction in pay, or dismissed before a decision is rendered after the hearing unless the governing board finds that at the time discipline was imposed at the conclusion of the review process specified in Skelly v. State Personnel Bd. (1975) 15 Cal.3d 194, the employer demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the employee engaged in criminal misconduct, misconduct that presents a risk of harm to students, staff, or property, or committed habitual violations of the districts policies or regulations.
(2)The community college district may stop paying a permanent employee before a decision is rendered after 30 calendar days from the date the hearing is requested.
(3)To the extent that this subdivision conflicts with a provision of a collective bargaining agreement entered into by a public school employer and an exclusive bargaining representative before January 1, 2023, pursuant to Chapter 10.7 (commencing with Section 3540) of Division 4 of Title 1 of the Government Code, this subdivision shall not apply to the community college district until the expiration or renewal of that collective bargaining agreement.
(g)This section shall apply only to districts not incorporating the merit system as outlined in Article 3 (commencing with Section 88060).
(h)To the extent that this section, as amended by Assembly Bill 275 of the 202122 Regular Session, conflicts with a provision of a collective bargaining agreement entered into by a public school employer and an exclusive bargaining representative before January 1, 2022, pursuant to Chapter 10.7 (commencing with Section 3540) of Division 4 of Title 1 of the Government Code, the changes made to this section by Assembly Bill 275 of the 202122 Regular Session shall not apply to the community college district until expiration or renewal of that collective bargaining agreement.
SEC. 4.If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
Each person employed by a county superintendent of schools in a position not requiring certification qualifications and whose salary is paid from the county school service fund shall be employed in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 44000) and Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 45100) of Part 25 of Division 3 of Title 2, including Section 45113, and Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 87000) and Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 88000) of Part 51 of Division 7 of Title 3, including Section 88013.
SEC. 2.Section 45113 of the Education Code is amended to read:45113.(a)The governing board of a school district shall prescribe written rules and regulations governing the personnel management of the classified service. These written rules and regulations shall be printed and made available to employees in the classified service, the public, and those concerned with the administration of this section, whereby these employees are designated as permanent employees of the school district after serving a prescribed period of probation that shall not exceed six months or 130 days of paid service, whichever is longer. However, a full-time peace officer or public safety dispatcher employed by a school district operating a dispatch center certified by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training, to be designated as a permanent employee of the school district, shall serve a probationary period of not less than one year of paid service from their date of appointment to that full-time position. A permanent employee who accepts a promotion and fails to complete the probationary period for that promotional position, shall be employed in the classification from which the employee was promoted.
(b)An employee designated as a permanent employee shall be subject to disciplinary action only for cause as prescribed by rule or regulation of the governing board of the school district, but the governing boards determination of the sufficiency of the cause for disciplinary action shall be conclusive, except as set forth elsewhere in this section.
(c)The governing board of a school district shall adopt rules of procedure for disciplinary proceedings that shall contain a provision for informing the employee by written notice of the specific charges against the employee, a statement of the employees right to a hearing on those charges, and the time within which the hearing may be requested that shall be not less than five 30 days after service of the notice to the employee, and a card or paper, the signing and filing of which shall constitute a demand for hearing, and a denial of all charges. The burden of proof shall remain with the governing board of the school district, and any rule or regulation to the contrary is void.
(d)Disciplinary action shall not be taken for any cause that arose before the employees becoming permanent, nor for any cause that arose more than two years preceding the date of the filing of the notice of cause unless the cause was concealed or not disclosed by the employee when it could be reasonably assumed that the employee should have disclosed the facts to the employing school district.
(e)This section shall not be construed to prohibit the governing board of a school district, pursuant to the terms of an agreement with an employee organization under Chapter 10.7 (commencing with Section 3540) of Division 4 of Title 1 of the Government Code, from delegating its authority to determine whether sufficient cause exists for disciplinary action, as described in subdivision (b), against classified employees, excluding peace officers as defined in Section 830.32 of the Penal Code, to an impartial third-party hearing officer. However, the governing board of the school district shall retain authority to review the determination under the standards set forth in Section 1286.2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(f)(1)Except as specified in paragraph (2), a permanent employee who timely requests a hearing on charges against the employee shall not be suspended without pay, suspended with a reduction in pay, demoted with a reduction in pay, or dismissed before a decision is rendered after the hearing, unless the governing board, or an impartial third-party hearing officer provided pursuant to the terms of an agreement with an employee organization under Chapter 10.7 (commencing with Section 3540) of Division 4 of Title 1 of the Government Code, finds that at the time discipline was imposed at the conclusion of the review process specified in Skelly v. State Personnel Bd. (1975) 15 Cal.3d 194, the employer demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the employee engaged in criminal misconduct, misconduct that presents a risk of harm to pupils, staff, or property, or committed habitual violations of the districts policies or regulations.
(2)The school district may stop paying a permanent employee before a decision is rendered after 30 calendar days from the date the hearing is requested.
(3)To the extent that this subdivision conflicts with a provision of a collective bargaining agreement entered into by a public school employer and an exclusive bargaining representative before January 1, 2023, pursuant to Chapter 10.7 (commencing with Section 3540) of Division 4 of Title 1 of the Government Code, this subdivision shall not apply to the school district until the expiration or renewal of that collective bargaining agreement.
(g)(1)An employee, excluding a peace officer as defined in Section 830.32 of the Penal Code, disciplined pursuant to the process described in subdivision (b) may appeal that disciplinary action to an impartial third-party hearing officer paid by the school district and jointly selected by the district and the employee or their employee organization, as that term is defined in subdivision (d) of Section 3540.1 of the Government Code, unless the employee organization and the district have entered into an agreement pursuant to Chapter 10.7 (commencing with Section 3540) of Division 4 of Title 1 of the Government Code providing an alternative method of appealing disciplinary action. An employee exercising this appeal right shall notify the governing board, in writing, within 30 days of receiving the initial disciplinary decision described in subdivision (b).
(2)The impartial third-party hearing officers determination shall be subject to judicial review pursuant to the standards of subdivision (a) of Section 1286.2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(3)This subdivision shall also apply to those classified employees that are employed by any entity, including a regional occupational center or program, created or established by one or more school districts pursuant to statute, exercising any joint power pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 6500) of Chapter 5 of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code, or as otherwise conferred by law upon school districts.
(4)For purposes of this subdivision, the following definitions apply:
(A)Disciplinary action means dismissals and suspensions of classified employees and demotions of nonsupervisory classified employees, and does not include reprimands or warnings whether verbal or written.
(B)Hearing officer means an arbitrator selected by striking from a list of seven arbitrators to be obtained by the parties from the California State Mediation and Conciliation Service, unless the parties agree upon another method of selecting a hearing officer.
(h)(1)A governing board of a school district or an impartial third-party hearing officer, as applicable, shall delegate its authority to a judge, as defined in Section 44990, to determine whether sufficient cause exists for disciplinary action against a classified employee involving allegations of egregious misconduct, as defined in Section 44932, and involving a minor, as defined in Section 44990. The judges ruling shall be binding upon all parties.
(2)A judge authorized under this subdivision to conduct a hearing involving allegations as described in Section 44010 or 44011, or as described in Sections 11165.2 to 11165.6, inclusive, of the Penal Code, shall conduct that hearing in accordance with Article 3.3 (commencing with Section 44990) of Chapter 4 and Section 49077.
(3)The term representative of the respondent, within the meaning of Article 3.3 (commencing with Section 44990) of Chapter 4, shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, an exclusive labor representative.
(i)This section applies only to school districts not incorporating the merit system as outlined in Article 6 (commencing with Section 45240).
SEC. 3.Section 88013 of the Education Code is amended to read:88013.(a)The governing board of a community college district shall prescribe written rules and regulations governing the personnel management of the classified service. These written rules and regulations shall be printed and made available to employees in the classified service, the public, and those concerned with the administration of this section, whereby these employees are, except as provided in Section 72411, designated as permanent employees of the district after serving a prescribed period of probation that shall not exceed six months or 130 days of paid service, whichever is longer. However, for a full-time peace officer or public safety dispatcher employed by a district operating a dispatch center certified by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training to be designated as a permanent employee of the district, they shall serve a probationary period of not less than one year of paid service from their date of appointment to that full-time position. A permanent employee who accepts a promotion and fails to complete the probationary period for that promotional classification, shall be employed in the position from which the employee was promoted.
(b)An employee designated as a permanent employee shall be subject to disciplinary action only for cause as prescribed by rule or regulation of the governing board.
(c)The governing board shall adopt rules of procedure for disciplinary proceedings that shall contain a provision for informing the employee by written notice of the specific charges against the employee, a statement of the employees right to a hearing on those charges, and the 30 days within which the hearing may be requested after service of the notice to the employee, and a card or paper, the signing and filing of which shall constitute a demand for hearing, and a denial of all charges. The burden of proof shall remain with the governing board, and any rule or regulation to the contrary shall be void.
(d)Disciplinary action shall not be taken for any cause that arose before the employee became permanent, or for any cause that arose more than two years preceding the date of the filing of the notice of cause, unless the cause was concealed or not disclosed by the employee when it could be reasonably assumed that the employee should have disclosed the facts to the employing district.
(e)(1)If an employee, excluding a peace officer as defined in Section 830.32 of the Penal Code, requests a hearing pursuant to subdivision (c), an impartial third-party hearing officer paid by the community college district and jointly selected by the district and the employee or their employee organization, as defined in subdivision (d) of Section 3540.1 of the Government Code, shall preside over the hearing and provide a determination as to the outcome of the disciplinary action.
(2)The impartial third-party hearing officers determination shall be subject to judicial review, on petition of either the governing board or the employee, pursuant to the standards of subdivision (a) of Section 1286.2 of the Code of Civil Procedure and in the same manner as a decision made by an administrative law judge under Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 11500) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code. The court, on review, shall exercise its independent judgment on the evidence. The proceeding shall be set for hearing at the earliest possible date and shall take precedence over all other cases, except older matters of the same character and matters to which special precedence is given by law.
(3)This subdivision shall also apply to those classified employees that are employed by any entity created or established by one or more community college districts pursuant to statute, exercising any joint power pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 6500) of Chapter 5 of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code, or as otherwise conferred by law upon community college districts.
(4)To the extent that this subdivision conflicts with a provision of a collective bargaining agreement entered into by a public school employer and an exclusive bargaining representative before January 1, 2024, pursuant to Chapter 10.7 (commencing with Section 3540) of Division 4 of Title 1 of the Government Code, this subdivision shall not apply to the community college district until the expiration or renewal of that collective bargaining agreement.
(5)For purposes of this subdivision, the following definitions apply:
(A)Disciplinary action does not include verbal or written reprimands or verbal or written warnings.
(B)Hearing officer means an arbitrator selected by striking from a list of seven arbitrators to be obtained by the parties from the California State Mediation and Conciliation Service, unless the parties agree upon another method of selecting a hearing officer.
(f)(1)Except as specified in paragraph (2), a permanent employee who timely requests a hearing on charges against the employee shall not be suspended without pay, suspended with a reduction in pay, demoted with a reduction in pay, or dismissed before a decision is rendered after the hearing unless the governing board finds that at the time discipline was imposed at the conclusion of the review process specified in Skelly v. State Personnel Bd. (1975) 15 Cal.3d 194, the employer demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the employee engaged in criminal misconduct, misconduct that presents a risk of harm to students, staff, or property, or committed habitual violations of the districts policies or regulations.
(2)The community college district may stop paying a permanent employee before a decision is rendered after 30 calendar days from the date the hearing is requested.
(3)To the extent that this subdivision conflicts with a provision of a collective bargaining agreement entered into by a public school employer and an exclusive bargaining representative before January 1, 2023, pursuant to Chapter 10.7 (commencing with Section 3540) of Division 4 of Title 1 of the Government Code, this subdivision shall not apply to the community college district until the expiration or renewal of that collective bargaining agreement.
(g)This section shall apply only to districts not incorporating the merit system as outlined in Article 3 (commencing with Section 88060).
(h)To the extent that this section, as amended by Assembly Bill 275 of the 202122 Regular Session, conflicts with a provision of a collective bargaining agreement entered into by a public school employer and an exclusive bargaining representative before January 1, 2022, pursuant to Chapter 10.7 (commencing with Section 3540) of Division 4 of Title 1 of the Government Code, the changes made to this section by Assembly Bill 275 of the 202122 Regular Session shall not apply to the community college district until expiration or renewal of that collective bargaining agreement.
SEC. 4.If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
Each person employed by a county superintendent of schools in a position not requiring certification qualifications and whose salary is paid from the county school service fund shall be employed in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 44000) and Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 45100) of Part 25 of Division 3 of Title 2, including Section 45113, and Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 87000) and Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 88000) of Part 51 of Division 7 of Title 3, including Section 88013.
SEC. 2.Section 45113 of the Education Code is amended to read:45113.(a)The governing board of a school district shall prescribe written rules and regulations governing the personnel management of the classified service. These written rules and regulations shall be printed and made available to employees in the classified service, the public, and those concerned with the administration of this section, whereby these employees are designated as permanent employees of the school district after serving a prescribed period of probation that shall not exceed six months or 130 days of paid service, whichever is longer. However, a full-time peace officer or public safety dispatcher employed by a school district operating a dispatch center certified by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training, to be designated as a permanent employee of the school district, shall serve a probationary period of not less than one year of paid service from their date of appointment to that full-time position. A permanent employee who accepts a promotion and fails to complete the probationary period for that promotional position, shall be employed in the classification from which the employee was promoted.
(b)An employee designated as a permanent employee shall be subject to disciplinary action only for cause as prescribed by rule or regulation of the governing board of the school district, but the governing boards determination of the sufficiency of the cause for disciplinary action shall be conclusive, except as set forth elsewhere in this section.
(c)The governing board of a school district shall adopt rules of procedure for disciplinary proceedings that shall contain a provision for informing the employee by written notice of the specific charges against the employee, a statement of the employees right to a hearing on those charges, and the time within which the hearing may be requested that shall be not less than five days after service of the notice to the employee, and a card or paper, the signing and filing of which shall constitute a demand for hearing, and a denial of all charges. The burden of proof shall remain with the governing board of the school district, and any rule or regulation to the contrary is void.
(d)Disciplinary action shall not be taken for any cause that arose before the employees becoming permanent, nor for any cause that arose more than two years preceding the date of the filing of the notice of cause unless the cause was concealed or not disclosed by the employee when it could be reasonably assumed that the employee should have disclosed the facts to the employing school district.
(e)This section shall not be construed to prohibit the governing board of a school district, pursuant to the terms of an agreement with an employee organization under Chapter 10.7 (commencing with Section 3540) of Division 4 of Title 1 of the Government Code, from delegating its authority to determine whether sufficient cause exists for disciplinary action, as described in subdivision (b), against classified employees, excluding peace officers as defined in Section 830.32 of the Penal Code, to an impartial third-party hearing officer. However, the governing board of the school district shall retain authority to review the determination under the standards set forth in Section 1286.2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(f)(1)Except as specified in paragraph (2), a permanent employee who timely requests a hearing on charges against the employee shall not be suspended without pay, suspended with a reduction in pay, demoted with a reduction in pay, or dismissed before a decision is rendered after the hearing, unless the governing board, or an impartial third-party hearing officer provided pursuant to the terms of an agreement with an employee organization under Chapter 10.7 (commencing with Section 3540) of Division 4 of Title 1 of the Government Code, finds that at the time discipline was imposed at the conclusion of the review process specified in Skelly v. State Personnel Bd. (1975) 15 Cal.3d 194, the employer demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the employee engaged in criminal misconduct, misconduct that presents a risk of harm to pupils, staff, or property, or committed habitual violations of the districts policies or regulations.
(2)The school district may stop paying a permanent employee before a decision is rendered after 30 calendar days from the date the hearing is requested.
(3)To the extent that this subdivision conflicts with a provision of a collective bargaining agreement entered into by a public school employer and an exclusive bargaining representative before January 1, 2023, pursuant to Chapter 10.7 (commencing with Section 3540) of Division 4 of Title 1 of the Government Code, this subdivision shall not apply to the school district until the expiration or renewal of that collective bargaining agreement.
(g)(1)An employee, excluding a peace officer as defined in Section 830.32 of the Penal Code, disciplined pursuant to the process described in subdivision (b) may appeal that disciplinary action to an impartial third-party hearing officer paid by the school district and jointly selected by the district and the employee or their employee organization, as that term is defined in subdivision (d) of Section 3540.1 of the Government Code, unless the employee organization and the district have entered into an agreement pursuant to Chapter 10.7 (commencing with Section 3540) of Division 4 of Title 1 of the Government Code providing an alternative method of appealing disciplinary action. An employee exercising this appeal right shall notify the governing board, in writing, within 30 days of receiving the initial disciplinary decision described in subdivision (b).
(2)The impartial third-party hearing officers determination shall be subject to judicial review pursuant to the standards of subdivision (a) of Section 1286.2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(3)This subdivision shall also apply to those classified employees that are employed by any entity, including a regional occupational center or program, created or established by one or more school districts pursuant to statute, exercising any joint power pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 6500) of Chapter 5 of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code, or as otherwise conferred by law upon school districts.
(4)For purposes of this subdivision, disciplinary action does not include verbal or written reprimands or verbal or written warnings.(4)For purposes of this subdivision, the following definitions apply:
(A)Disciplinary action means dismissals and suspensions of classified employees and demotions of nonsupervisory classified employees, and does not include reprimands or warnings whether verbal or written.
(B)Hearing officer means an arbitrator selected by striking from a list of seven arbitrators to be obtained by the parties from the California State Mediation and Conciliation Service, unless the parties agree upon another method of selecting a hearing officer.
(h)(1)A governing board of a school district or an impartial third-party hearing officer, as applicable, shall delegate its authority to a judge, as defined in Section 44990, to determine whether sufficient cause exists for disciplinary action against a classified employee involving allegations of egregious misconduct, as defined in Section 44932, and involving a minor, as defined in Section 44990. The judges ruling shall be binding upon all parties.
(2)A judge authorized under this subdivision to conduct a hearing involving allegations as described in Section 44010 or 44011, or as described in Sections 11165.2 to 11165.6, inclusive, of the Penal Code, shall conduct that hearing in accordance with Article 3.3 (commencing with Section 44990) of Chapter 4 and Section 49077.
(3)The term representative of the respondent, within the meaning of Article 3.3 (commencing with Section 44990) of Chapter 4, shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, an exclusive labor representative.
(i)This section applies only to school districts not incorporating the merit system as outlined in Article 6 (commencing with Section 45240).
SEC. 3.Section 88013 of the Education Code is amended to read:88013.(a)The governing board of a community college district shall prescribe written rules and regulations governing the personnel management of the classified service. These written rules and regulations shall be printed and made available to employees in the classified service, the public, and those concerned with the administration of this section, whereby these employees are, except as provided in Section 72411, designated as permanent employees of the district after serving a prescribed period of probation that shall not exceed six months or 130 days of paid service, whichever is longer. However, for a full-time peace officer or public safety dispatcher employed by a district operating a dispatch center certified by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training to be designated as a permanent employee of the district, they shall serve a probationary period of not less than one year of paid service from their date of appointment to that full-time position. A permanent employee who accepts a promotion and fails to complete the probationary period for that promotional classification, shall be employed in the position from which the employee was promoted.
(b)An employee designated as a permanent employee shall be subject to disciplinary action only for cause as prescribed by rule or regulation of the governing board, but the governing boards determination of the sufficiency of the cause for disciplinary action shall be conclusive, except as set forth elsewhere in this section. board.
(c)The governing board shall adopt rules of procedure for disciplinary proceedings that shall contain a provision for informing the employee by written notice of the specific charges against the employee, a statement of the employees right to a hearing on those charges, and the time 30 days within which the hearing may be requested which shall be not less than five days after service of the notice to the employee, and a card or paper, the signing and filing of which shall constitute a demand for hearing, and a denial of all charges. The burden of proof shall remain with the governing board, and any rule or regulation to the contrary shall be void.
(d)Disciplinary action shall not be taken for any cause that arose before the employee became permanent, or for any cause that arose more than two years preceding the date of the filing of the notice of cause, unless the cause was concealed or not disclosed by the employee when it could be reasonably assumed that the employee should have disclosed the facts to the employing district.
(e)This section shall not be construed to prohibit the governing board, pursuant to the terms of an agreement with an employee organization under Chapter 10.7 (commencing with Section 3540) of Division 4 of Title 1 of the Government Code, from delegating its authority to determine whether sufficient cause exists for disciplinary action, as described in subdivision (b), against classified employees, excluding peace officers as defined in Section 830.32 of the Penal Code, to an impartial third-party hearing officer. However, the governing board shall retain authority to review the determination under the standards set forth in Section 1286.2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.(e)(1)If an employee, excluding a peace officer as defined in Section 830.32 of the Penal Code, requests a hearing pursuant to subdivision (c), an impartial third-party hearing officer paid by the community college district and jointly selected by the district and the employee or their employee organization, as defined in subdivision (d) of Section 3540.1 of the Government Code, shall preside over the hearing and provide a determination as to the outcome of the disciplinary action.
(2)The impartial third-party hearing officers determination shall be subject to judicial review, on petition of either the governing board or the employee, pursuant to the standards of subdivision (a) of Section 1286.2 of the Code of Civil Procedure and in the same manner as a decision made by an administrative law judge under Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 11500) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code. The court, on review, shall exercise its independent judgment on the evidence. The proceeding shall be set for hearing at the earliest possible date and shall take precedence over all other cases, except older matters of the same character and matters to which special precedence is given by law.
(3)This subdivision shall also apply to those classified employees that are employed by any entity created or established by one or more community college districts pursuant to statute, exercising any joint power pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 6500) of Chapter 5 of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code, or as otherwise conferred by law upon community college districts.
(4)To the extent that this subdivision conflicts with a provision of a collective bargaining agreement entered into by a public school employer and an exclusive bargaining representative before January 1, 2024, pursuant to Chapter 10.7 (commencing with Section 3540) of Division 4 of Title 1 of the Government Code, this subdivision shall not apply to the community college district until the expiration or renewal of that collective bargaining agreement.
(5)For purposes of this subdivision, the following definitions apply:
(A)Disciplinary action does not include verbal or written reprimands or verbal or written warnings.
(B)Hearing officer means an arbitrator selected by striking from a list of seven arbitrators to be obtained by the parties from the California State Mediation and Conciliation Service, unless the parties agree upon another method of selecting a hearing officer.
(f)(1)Except as specified in paragraph (2), a permanent employee who timely requests a hearing on charges against the employee shall not be suspended without pay, suspended with a reduction in pay, demoted with a reduction in pay, or dismissed before a decision is rendered after the hearing unless the governing board, or an impartial third-party hearing officer provided pursuant to the terms of an agreement with an employee organization under Chapter 10.7 (commencing with Section 3540) of Division 4 of Title 1 of the Government Code, board finds that at the time discipline was imposed at the conclusion of the review process specified in Skelly v. State Personnel Bd. (1975) 15 Cal.3d 194, the employer demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the employee engaged in criminal misconduct, misconduct that presents a risk of harm to students, staff, or property, or committed habitual violations of the districts policies or regulations.
(2)The community college district may stop paying a permanent employee before a decision is rendered after 30 calendar days from the date the hearing is requested.
(3)To the extent that this subdivision conflicts with a provision of a collective bargaining agreement entered into by a public school employer and an exclusive bargaining representative before January 1, 2023, pursuant to Chapter 10.7 (commencing with Section 3540) of Division 4 of Title 1 of the Government Code, this subdivision shall not apply to the community college district until the expiration or renewal of that collective bargaining agreement.
(g)(1)An employee, excluding a peace officer as defined in Section 830.32 of the Penal Code, disciplined pursuant to the process described in subdivision (b) may appeal that disciplinary action to an impartial third-party hearing officer paid by the community college district and jointly selected by the district and the employee or their employee organization, as that term is defined in subdivision (d) of Section 3540.1 of the Government Code, unless the employee organization and the district have entered into an agreement pursuant to Chapter 10.7 (commencing with Section 3540) of Division 4 of Title 1 of the Government Code providing an alternative method of appealing disciplinary action. An employee exercising this appeal right shall notify the governing board, in writing, within 30 days of receiving the initial disciplinary decision described in subdivision (b).(2)The impartial third-party hearing officers determination shall be subject to judicial review pursuant to the standards of subdivision (a) of Section 1286.2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.(3)This subdivision shall also apply to those classified employees that are employed by any entity created or established by one or more community college districts pursuant to statute, exercising any joint power pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 6500) of Chapter 5 of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code, or as otherwise conferred by law upon community college districts.(4)For purposes of this subdivision, disciplinary action does not include verbal or written reprimands or verbal or written warnings.(h)(g)This section shall apply only to districts not incorporating the merit system as outlined in Article 3 (commencing with Section 88060).
(i)(h)To the extent that this section, as amended by Assembly Bill 275 of the 202122 Regular Session, conflicts with a provision of a collective bargaining agreement entered into by a public school employer and an exclusive bargaining representative before January 1, 2022, pursuant to Chapter 10.7 (commencing with Section 3540) of Division 4 of Title 1 of the Government Code, the changes made to this section by Assembly Bill 275 of the 202122 Regular Session shall not apply to the community college district until expiration or renewal of that collective bargaining agreement.
SEC. 4.If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
Each person employed by a county superintendent of schools in a position not requiring certification qualifications and whose salary is paid from the county school service fund shall be employed in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 44000) and Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 45100) of Part 25 of Division 3 of Title 2, including Section 45113, and Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 87000) and Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 88000) of Part 51 of Division 7 of Title 3, including Section 88013.
SEC. 2.Section 45113 of the Education Code is amended to read:45113.(a)The governing board of a school district shall prescribe written rules and regulations governing the personnel management of the classified service. These written rules and regulations shall be printed and made available to employees in the classified service, the public, and those concerned with the administration of this section, whereby these employees are designated as permanent employees of the school district after serving a prescribed period of probation that shall not exceed six months or 130 days of paid service, whichever is longer. However, a full-time peace officer or public safety dispatcher employed by a school district operating a dispatch center certified by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training, to be designated as a permanent employee of the school district, shall serve a probationary period of not less than one year of paid service from their date of appointment to that full-time position. A permanent employee who accepts a promotion and fails to complete the probationary period for that promotional position, shall be employed in the classification from which the employee was promoted.
(b)(1)An employee designated as a permanent employee shall be subject to disciplinary action only for cause. Except as specified in paragraph (2), cause shall be determined by an impartial third-party hearing officer paid by the school district and jointly selected by the district and the employee or their employee organization, as that term is defined in subdivision (d) of Section 3540.1 of the Government Code, unless the employee organization and the district have entered into an agreement pursuant to Chapter 10.7 (commencing with Section 3540) of Division 4 of Title 1 of the Government Code providing an alternative method of determining cause. cause as prescribed by rule or regulation of the governing board of the school district, but the governing boards determination of the sufficiency of the cause for disciplinary action shall be conclusive, except as set forth elsewhere in this section.
(2)The governing board of a school district shall make the determination of cause for discipline for any peace officer as defined in Section 830.2 of the Penal Code.(3)The impartial third-party hearing officers determination shall be subject to judicial review pursuant to the standards of subdivision (a) of Section 1286.2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.(4)This subdivision shall also apply to those classified employees that are employed by any entity, including a regional occupational center or program, created or established by one or more school districts pursuant to statute, exercising any joint power pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 6500) of Chapter 5 of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code, or as otherwise conferred by law upon school districts.(c)The governing board of a school district shall adopt rules of procedure for disciplinary proceedings that shall contain a provision for informing the employee by written notice of the specific charges against the employee, a statement of the employees right to a hearing on those charges, and the time within which the hearing may be requested that shall be not less than five days after service of the notice to the employee, and a card or paper, the signing and filing of which shall constitute a demand for hearing, and a denial of all charges. The burden of proof shall remain with the governing board of the school district, and any rule or regulation to the contrary is void.
(d)Disciplinary action shall not be taken for any cause that arose before the employees becoming permanent, nor for any cause that arose more than two years preceding the date of the filing of the notice of cause unless the cause was concealed or not disclosed by the employee when it could be reasonably assumed that the employee should have disclosed the facts to the employing school district.
(e)This section shall not be construed to prohibit the governing board of a school district, pursuant to the terms of an agreement with an employee organization under Chapter 10.7 (commencing with Section 3540) of Division 4 of Title 1 of the Government Code, from delegating its authority to determine whether sufficient cause exists for disciplinary action, as described in subdivision (b), against classified employees, excluding peace officers as defined in Section 830.32 of the Penal Code, to an impartial third-party hearing officer. However, the governing board of the school district shall retain authority to review the determination under the standards set forth in Section 1286.2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(e)(f)(1)Except as specified in paragraph (2), a permanent employee who timely requests a hearing on charges against the employee shall not be suspended without pay, suspended with a reduction in pay, demoted with a reduction in pay, or dismissed before a decision is rendered after the hearing, unless the governing board, or an impartial third-party hearing officer provided pursuant to the terms of an agreement with an employee organization under Chapter 10.7 (commencing with Section 3540) of Division 4 of Title 1 of the Government Code, finds that at the time discipline was imposed at the conclusion of the review process specified in Skelly v. State Personnel Bd. (1975) 15 Cal.3d 194, the employer demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the employee engaged in criminal misconduct, misconduct that presents a risk of harm to pupils, staff, or property, or committed habitual violations of the districts policies or regulations.
(2)The school district may stop paying a permanent employee before a decision is rendered after 30 calendar days from the date the hearing is requested.
(3)To the extent that this subdivision conflicts with a provision of a collective bargaining agreement entered into by a public school employer and an exclusive bargaining representative before January 1, 2023, pursuant to Chapter 10.7 (commencing with Section 3540) of Division 4 of Title 1 of the Government Code, this subdivision shall not apply to the school district until the expiration or renewal of that collective bargaining agreement.
(g)(1)An employee, excluding a peace officer as defined in Section 830.32 of the Penal Code, disciplined pursuant to the process described in subdivision (b) may appeal that disciplinary action to an impartial third-party hearing officer paid by the school district and jointly selected by the district and the employee or their employee organization, as that term is defined in subdivision (d) of Section 3540.1 of the Government Code, unless the employee organization and the district have entered into an agreement pursuant to Chapter 10.7 (commencing with Section 3540) of Division 4 of Title 1 of the Government Code providing an alternative method of appealing disciplinary action. An employee exercising this appeal right shall notify the governing board, in writing, within 30 days of receiving the initial disciplinary decision described in subdivision (b).
(2)The impartial third-party hearing officers determination shall be subject to judicial review pursuant to the standards of subdivision (a) of Section 1286.2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(3)This subdivision shall also apply to those classified employees that are employed by any entity, including a regional occupational center or program, created or established by one or more school districts pursuant to statute, exercising any joint power pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 6500) of Chapter 5 of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code, or as otherwise conferred by law upon school districts.
(4)For purposes of this subdivision, disciplinary action does not include verbal or written reprimands or verbal or written warnings.
(f)(h)(1)A governing board of a school district or an impartial third-party hearing officer, as applicable, shall delegate its authority to a judge, as defined in Section 44990, to determine whether sufficient cause exists for disciplinary action against a classified employee involving allegations of egregious misconduct, as defined in Section 44932, and involving a minor, as defined in Section 44990. The judges ruling shall be binding upon all parties.
(2)A judge authorized under this subdivision to conduct a hearing involving allegations as described in Section 44010 or 44011, or as described in Sections 11165.2 to 11165.6, inclusive, of the Penal Code, shall conduct that hearing in accordance with Article 3.3 (commencing with Section 44990) of Chapter 4 and Section 49077.
(3)The term representative of the respondent, within the meaning of Article 3.3 (commencing with Section 44990) of Chapter 4, shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, an exclusive labor representative.
(g)(i)This section applies only to school districts not incorporating the merit system as outlined in Article 6 (commencing with Section 45240).
SEC. 3.Section 88013 of the Education Code is amended to read:88013.(a)The governing board of a community college district shall prescribe written rules and regulations governing the personnel management of the classified service. These written rules and regulations shall be printed and made available to employees in the classified service, the public, and those concerned with the administration of this section, whereby these employees are, except as provided in Section 72411, designated as permanent employees of the district after serving a prescribed period of probation that shall not exceed six months or 130 days of paid service, whichever is longer. However, for a full-time peace officer or public safety dispatcher employed by a district operating a dispatch center certified by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training to be designated as a permanent employee of the district, they shall serve a probationary period of not less than one year of paid service from their date of appointment to that full-time position. A permanent employee who accepts a promotion and fails to complete the probationary period for that promotional classification, shall be employed in the position from which the employee was promoted.
(b)(1)An employee designated as a permanent employee shall be subject to disciplinary action only for cause. Except as specified in paragraph (2), cause shall be determined by an impartial third-party hearing officer paid by the community college district and jointly selected by the district and the employee or their employee organization, as that term is defined in subdivision (d) of Section 3540.1 of the Government Code, unless the employee organization and the district have entered into an agreement pursuant to Chapter 10.7 (commencing with Section 3540) of Division 4 of Title 1 of the Government Code providing an alternative method of determining cause. cause as prescribed by rule or regulation of the governing board, but the governing boards determination of the sufficiency of the cause for disciplinary action shall be conclusive, except as set forth elsewhere in this section.
(2)The governing board of a community college district shall make the determination of cause for discipline for any peace officer as defined in Section 830.2 of the Penal Code.(3)The impartial third-party hearing officers determination shall be subject to judicial review pursuant to the standards of subdivision (a) of Section 1286.2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.(4)This subdivision shall also apply to those classified employees that are employed by any entity created or established by one or more community college districts pursuant to statute, exercising any joint power pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 6500) of Chapter 5 of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code, or as otherwise conferred by law upon community college districts.(c)The governing board shall adopt rules of procedure for disciplinary proceedings that shall contain a provision for informing the employee by written notice of the specific charges against the employee, a statement of the employees right to a hearing on those charges, and the time within which the hearing may be requested which shall be not less than five days after service of the notice to the employee, and a card or paper, the signing and filing of which shall constitute a demand for hearing, and a denial of all charges. The burden of proof shall remain with the governing board, and any rule or regulation to the contrary shall be void.
(d)Disciplinary action shall not be taken for any cause that arose before the employee became permanent, or for any cause that arose more than two years preceding the date of the filing of the notice of cause, unless the cause was concealed or not disclosed by the employee when it could be reasonably assumed that the employee should have disclosed the facts to the employing district.
(e)This section shall not be construed to prohibit the governing board, pursuant to the terms of an agreement with an employee organization under Chapter 10.7 (commencing with Section 3540) of Division 4 of Title 1 of the Government Code, from delegating its authority to determine whether sufficient cause exists for disciplinary action, as described in subdivision (b), against classified employees, excluding peace officers as defined in Section 830.32 of the Penal Code, to an impartial third-party hearing officer. However, the governing board shall retain authority to review the determination under the standards set forth in Section 1286.2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(e)(f)(1)Except as specified in paragraph (2), a permanent employee who timely requests a hearing on charges against the employee shall not be suspended without pay, suspended with a reduction in pay, demoted with a reduction in pay, or dismissed before a decision is rendered after the hearing unless the governing board, or an impartial third-party hearing officer provided pursuant to the terms of an agreement with an employee organization under Chapter 10.7 (commencing with Section 3540) of Division 4 of Title 1 of the Government Code, finds that at the time discipline was imposed at the conclusion of the review process specified in Skelly v. State Personnel Bd. (1975) 15 Cal.3d 194, the employer demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the employee engaged in criminal misconduct, misconduct that presents a risk of harm to students, staff, or property, or committed habitual violations of the districts policies or regulations.
(2)The community college district may stop paying a permanent employee before a decision is rendered after 30 calendar days from the date the hearing is requested.
(3)To the extent that this subdivision conflicts with a provision of a collective bargaining agreement entered into by a public school employer and an exclusive bargaining representative before January 1, 2023, pursuant to Chapter 10.7 (commencing with Section 3540) of Division 4 of Title 1 of the Government Code, this subdivision shall not apply to the community college district until the expiration or renewal of that collective bargaining agreement.
(g)(1)An employee, excluding a peace officer as defined in Section 830.32 of the Penal Code, disciplined pursuant to the process described in subdivision (b) may appeal that disciplinary action to an impartial third-party hearing officer paid by the community college district and jointly selected by the district and the employee or their employee organization, as that term is defined in subdivision (d) of Section 3540.1 of the Government Code, unless the employee organization and the district have entered into an agreement pursuant to Chapter 10.7 (commencing with Section 3540) of Division 4 of Title 1 of the Government Code providing an alternative method of appealing disciplinary action. An employee exercising this appeal right shall notify the governing board, in writing, within 30 days of receiving the initial disciplinary decision described in subdivision (b).
(2)The impartial third-party hearing officers determination shall be subject to judicial review pursuant to the standards of subdivision (a) of Section 1286.2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(3)This subdivision shall also apply to those classified employees that are employed by any entity created or established by one or more community college districts pursuant to statute, exercising any joint power pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 6500) of Chapter 5 of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code, or as otherwise conferred by law upon community college districts.
(4)For purposes of this subdivision, disciplinary action does not include verbal or written reprimands or verbal or written warnings.
(f)(h)This section shall apply only to districts not incorporating the merit system as outlined in Article 3 (commencing with Section 88060).
(g)(i)To the extent that this section, as amended by Assembly Bill 275 of the 202122 Regular Session, conflicts with a provision of a collective bargaining agreement entered into by a public school employer and an exclusive bargaining representative before January 1, 2022, pursuant to Chapter 10.7 (commencing with Section 3540) of Division 4 of Title 1 of the Government Code, the changes made to this section by Assembly Bill 275 of the 202122 Regular Session shall not apply to the community college district until expiration or renewal of that collective bargaining agreement.
SEC. 4.If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
Each person employed by a county superintendent of schools in a position not requiring certification qualifications and whose salary is paid from the county school service fund shall be employed in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 44000) and Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 45100) of Part 25 of Division 3 of Title 2, including Section 45113, and Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 87000) and Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 88000) of Part 51 of Division 7 of Title 3. 3, including Section 88013.
SECTION 1.SEC. 2.Section 45113 of the Education Code is amended to read:45113.(a)The governing board of a school district shall prescribe written rules and regulations governing the personnel management of the classified service. These written rules and regulations shall be printed and made available to employees in the classified service, the public, and those concerned with the administration of this section, whereby these employees are designated as permanent employees of the school district after serving a prescribed period of probation that shall not exceed six months or 130 days of paid service, whichever is longer. However, a full-time peace officer or public safety dispatcher employed by a school district operating a dispatch center certified by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training, to be designated as a permanent employee of the school district, shall serve a probationary period of not less than one year of paid service from their date of appointment to that full-time position. A permanent employee who accepts a promotion and fails to complete the probationary period for that promotional position, shall be employed in the classification from which the employee was promoted.
(b)(1)An employee designated as a permanent employee shall be subject to disciplinary action only for cause. Except as specified in paragraph (2), cause shall be determined by an impartial third-party hearing officer paid by the school district and jointly selected by the district and the employee or their exclusive representative, employee organization, as that term is defined in subdivision (d) of Section 3540.1 of the Government Code, unless the exclusive representative employee organization and the district have entered into a collective bargaining an agreement pursuant to Chapter 10.7 (commencing with Section 3540) of Division 4 of Title 1 of the Government Code providing an alternative method of determining cause.
(2)The governing board of a school district shall make the determination of cause for discipline for any peace officer as defined in Section 830.2 of the Penal Code.
(3)The impartial third-party hearing officers determination shall be subject to judicial review pursuant to the standards of subdivision (a) of Section 1286.2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(4)This subdivision shall also apply to those classified employees that are employed by any entity, including a regional occupational center or program, created or established by one or more school districts pursuant to statute, exercising any joint power pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 6500) of Chapter 5 of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code, or as otherwise conferred by law upon school districts.
(c)The governing board of a school district shall adopt rules of procedure for disciplinary proceedings that shall contain a provision for informing the employee by written notice of the specific charges against the employee, a statement of the employees right to a hearing on those charges, and the time within which the hearing may be requested that shall be not less than five days after service of the notice to the employee, and a card or paper, the signing and filing of which shall constitute a demand for hearing, and a denial of all charges. The burden of proof shall remain with the governing board of the school district, and any rule or regulation to the contrary is void.
(d)Disciplinary action shall not be taken for any cause that arose before the employees becoming permanent, nor for any cause that arose more than two years preceding the date of the filing of the notice of cause unless the cause was concealed or not disclosed by the employee when it could be reasonably assumed that the employee should have disclosed the facts to the employing school district.
(e)(1)Except as specified in paragraph (2), a permanent employee who timely requests a hearing on charges against the employee shall not be suspended without pay, suspended with a reduction in pay, demoted with a reduction in pay, or dismissed before a decision is rendered after the hearing, unless the governing board, or an impartial third-party hearing officer provided pursuant to the terms of an agreement with an employee organization under Chapter 10.7 (commencing with Section 3540) of Division 4 of Title 1 of the Government Code, finds that at the time discipline was imposed at the conclusion of the review process specified in Skelly v. State Personnel Bd. (1975) 15 Cal.3d 194, the employer demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the employee engaged in criminal misconduct, misconduct that presents a risk of harm to pupils, staff, or property, or committed habitual violations of the districts policies or regulations.
(2)The school district may stop paying a permanent employee before a decision is rendered after 30 calendar days from the date the hearing is requested.
(3)To the extent that this subdivision conflicts with a provision of a collective bargaining agreement entered into by a public school employer and an exclusive bargaining representative before January 1, 2023, pursuant to Chapter 10.7 (commencing with Section 3540) of Division 4 of Title 1 of the Government Code, this subdivision shall not apply to the school district until the expiration or renewal of that collective bargaining agreement.
(f)(1)A governing board of a school district or an impartial third-party hearing officer, as applicable, shall delegate its authority to a judge, as defined in Section 44990, to determine whether sufficient cause exists for disciplinary action against a classified employee involving allegations of egregious misconduct, as defined in Section 44932, and involving a minor, as defined in Section 44990. The judges ruling shall be binding upon all parties.
(2)A judge authorized under this subdivision to conduct a hearing involving allegations as described in Section 44010 or 44011, or as described in Sections 11165.2 to 11165.6, inclusive, of the Penal Code, shall conduct that hearing in accordance with Article 3.3 (commencing with Section 44990) of Chapter 4 and Section 49077.
(3)The term representative of the respondent, within the meaning of Article 3.3 (commencing with Section 44990) of Chapter 4, shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, an exclusive labor representative.
(g)This section applies only to school districts not incorporating the merit system as outlined in Article 6 (commencing with Section 45240).
SEC. 2.SEC. 3.Section 88013 of the Education Code is amended to read:88013.(a)The governing board of a community college district shall prescribe written rules and regulations governing the personnel management of the classified service. These written rules and regulations shall be printed and made available to employees in the classified service, the public, and those concerned with the administration of this section, whereby these employees are, except as provided in Section 72411, designated as permanent employees of the district after serving a prescribed period of probation that shall not exceed six months or 130 days of paid service, whichever is longer. However, for a full-time peace officer or public safety dispatcher employed by a district operating a dispatch center certified by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training to be designated as a permanent employee of the district, they shall serve a probationary period of not less than one year of paid service from their date of appointment to that full-time position. A permanent employee who accepts a promotion and fails to complete the probationary period for that promotional classification, shall be employed in the position from which the employee was promoted.
(b)(1)An employee designated as a permanent employee shall be subject to disciplinary action only for cause. Except as specified in paragraph (2), cause shall be determined by an impartial third-party hearing officer paid by the community college district and jointly selected by the district and the employee or their exclusive representative, employee organization, as that term is defined in subdivision (d) of Section 3540.1 of the Government Code, unless the exclusive representative employee organization and the district have entered into a collective bargaining an agreement pursuant to Chapter 10.7 (commencing with Section 3540) of Division 4 of Title 1 of the Government Code providing an alternative method of determining cause.
(2)The governing board of a community college district shall make the determination of cause for discipline for any peace officer as defined in Section 830.2 of the Penal Code.
(3)The impartial third-party hearing officers determination shall be subject to judicial review pursuant to the standards of subdivision (a) of Section 1286.2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(4)This subdivision shall also apply to those classified employees that are employed by any entity created or established by one or more community college districts pursuant to statute, exercising any joint power pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 6500) of Chapter 5 of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code, or as otherwise conferred by law upon community college districts.
(c)The governing board shall adopt rules of procedure for disciplinary proceedings that shall contain a provision for informing the employee by written notice of the specific charges against the employee, a statement of the employees right to a hearing on those charges, and the time within which the hearing may be requested which shall be not less than five days after service of the notice to the employee, and a card or paper, the signing and filing of which shall constitute a demand for hearing, and a denial of all charges. The burden of proof shall remain with the governing board, and any rule or regulation to the contrary shall be void.
(d)Disciplinary action shall not be taken for any cause that arose before the employee became permanent, or for any cause that arose more than two years preceding the date of the filing of the notice of cause, unless the cause was concealed or not disclosed by the employee when it could be reasonably assumed that the employee should have disclosed the facts to the employing district.
(e)(1)Except as specified in paragraph (2), a permanent employee who timely requests a hearing on charges against the employee shall not be suspended without pay, suspended with a reduction in pay, demoted with a reduction in pay, or dismissed before a decision is rendered after the hearing unless the governing board, or an impartial third-party hearing officer provided pursuant to the terms of an agreement with an employee organization under Chapter 10.7 (commencing with Section 3540) of Division 4 of Title 1 of the Government Code, finds that at the time discipline was imposed at the conclusion of the review process specified in Skelly v. State Personnel Bd. (1975) 15 Cal.3d 194, the employer demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the employee engaged in criminal misconduct, misconduct that presents a risk of harm to students, staff, or property, or committed habitual violations of the districts policies or regulations.
(2)The community college district may stop paying a permanent employee before a decision is rendered after 30 calendar days from the date the hearing is requested.
(3)To the extent that this subdivision conflicts with a provision of a collective bargaining agreement entered into by a public school employer and an exclusive bargaining representative before January 1, 2023, pursuant to Chapter 10.7 (commencing with Section 3540) of Division 4 of Title 1 of the Government Code, this subdivision shall not apply to the community college district until the expiration or renewal of that collective bargaining agreement.
(f)This section shall apply only to districts not incorporating the merit system as outlined in Article 3 (commencing with Section 88060).
(g)To the extent that this section, as amended by Assembly Bill 275 of the 202122 Regular Session, conflicts with a provision of a collective bargaining agreement entered into by a public school employer and an exclusive bargaining representative before January 1, 2022, pursuant to Chapter 10.7 (commencing with Section 3540) of Division 4 of Title 1 of the Government Code, the changes made to this section by Assembly Bill 275 of the 202122 Regular Session shall not apply to the community college district until expiration or renewal of that collective bargaining agreement.
SEC. 3.SEC. 4.If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
(a)The governing board of a school district shall prescribe written rules and regulations governing the personnel management of the classified service. These written rules and regulations shall be printed and made available to employees in the classified service, the public, and those concerned with the administration of this section, whereby these employees are designated as permanent employees of the school district after serving a prescribed period of probation that shall not exceed six months or 130 days of paid service, whichever is longer. However, a full-time peace officer or public safety dispatcher employed by a school district operating a dispatch center certified by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training, to be designated as a permanent employee of the school district, shall serve a probationary period of not less than one year of paid service from their date of appointment to that full-time position. A permanent employee who accepts a promotion and fails to complete the probationary period for that promotional position, shall be employed in the classification from which the employee was promoted.
(b)(1)An employee designated as a permanent employee shall be subject to disciplinary action only for cause as prescribed by rule or regulation of the governing board of the school district, but the governing boards determination of the sufficiency of the cause for disciplinary action shall be conclusive. cause. Except as specified in paragraph (2), cause shall be determined by an impartial third-party hearing officer paid by the school district and jointly selected by the district and the employee or their exclusive representative, unless the exclusive representative and the district have entered into a collective bargaining agreement pursuant to Chapter 10.7 (commencing with Section 3540) of Division 4 of Title 1 of the Government Code providing an alternative method of determining cause.
(2)The governing board of a school district shall make the determination of cause for discipline for any peace officer as defined in Section 830.2 of the Penal Code.
(c)The governing board of a school district shall adopt rules of procedure for disciplinary proceedings that shall contain a provision for informing the employee by written notice of the specific charges against the employee, a statement of the employees right to a hearing on those charges, and the time within which the hearing may be requested that shall be not less than five days after service of the notice to the employee, and a card or paper, the signing and filing of which shall constitute a demand for hearing, and a denial of all charges. The burden of proof shall remain with the governing board of the school district, and any rule or regulation to the contrary is void.
(d)Disciplinary action shall not be taken for any cause that arose before the employees becoming permanent, nor for any cause that arose more than two years preceding the date of the filing of the notice of cause unless the cause was concealed or not disclosed by the employee when it could be reasonably assumed that the employee should have disclosed the facts to the employing school district.
(e)This section shall not be construed to prohibit the governing board of a school district, pursuant to the terms of an agreement with an employee organization under Chapter 10.7 (commencing with Section 3540) of Division 4 of Title 1 of the Government Code, from delegating its authority to determine whether sufficient cause exists for disciplinary action against classified employees, excluding peace officers as defined in Section 830.32 of the Penal Code, to an impartial third-party hearing officer. However, the governing board of the school district shall retain authority to review the determination under the standards set forth in Section 1286.2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.(f)(e)(1)Except as specified in paragraph (2), a permanent employee who timely requests a hearing on charges against the employee shall not be suspended without pay, suspended with a reduction in pay, demoted with a reduction in pay, or dismissed before a decision is rendered after the hearing, unless the governing board, or an impartial third-party hearing officer provided pursuant to the terms of an agreement with an employee organization under Chapter 10.7 (commencing with Section 3540) of Division 4 of Title 1 of the Government Code, finds that at the time discipline was imposed at the conclusion of the review process specified in Skelly v. State Personnel Bd. (1975) 15 Cal.3d 194, the employer demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the employee engaged in criminal misconduct, misconduct that presents a risk of harm to pupils, staff, or property, or committed habitual violations of the districts policies or regulations.
(2)If a hearing on the charges will be conducted by an impartial third-party hearing officer or the governing board pursuant to subdivision (e), the The school district may stop paying a permanent employee before a decision is rendered after 30 calendar days from the date the hearing is requested.
(3)To the extent that this subdivision conflicts with a provision of a collective bargaining agreement entered into by a public school employer and an exclusive bargaining representative before January 1, 2023, pursuant to Chapter 10.7 (commencing with Section 3540) of Division 4 of Title 1 of the Government Code, this subdivision shall not apply to the school district until the expiration or renewal of that collective bargaining agreement.
(g)(f)(1)A governing board of a school district or an impartial third-party hearing officer, as applicable, shall delegate its authority to a judge, as defined in Section 44990, to determine whether sufficient cause exists for disciplinary action against a classified employee involving allegations of egregious misconduct, as defined in Section 44932, and involving a minor, as defined in Section 44990. The judges ruling shall be binding upon all parties.
(2)A judge authorized under this subdivision to conduct a hearing involving allegations as described in Section 44010 or 44011, or as described in Sections 11165.2 to 11165.6, inclusive, of the Penal Code, shall conduct that hearing in accordance with Article 3.3 (commencing with Section 44990) of Chapter 4 and Section 49077.
(3)The term representative of the respondent, within the meaning of Article 3.3 (commencing with Section 44990) of Chapter 4, shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, an exclusive labor representative.
(h)(g)This section applies only to school districts not incorporating the merit system as outlined in Article 6 (commencing with Section 45240).
(i)To the extent that this section, as amended by Chapter 542 of the Statutes of 2019, conflicts with a provision of a collective bargaining agreement entered into by a public school employer and an exclusive bargaining representative before January 1, 2020, pursuant to Chapter 10.7 (commencing with Section 3540) of Division 4 of Title 1 of the Government Code, the changes made to this section by Chapter 542 of the Statutes of 2019 shall not apply to the school district until expiration or renewal of that collective bargaining agreement.SEC. 2.Section 88013 of the Education Code is amended to read:88013.(a)The governing board of a community college district shall prescribe written rules and regulations governing the personnel management of the classified service. These written rules and regulations shall be printed and made available to employees in the classified service, the public, and those concerned with the administration of this section, whereby these employees are, except as provided in Section 72411, designated as permanent employees of the district after serving a prescribed period of probation that shall not exceed six months or 130 days of paid service, whichever is longer. However, for a full-time peace officer or public safety dispatcher employed by a district operating a dispatch center certified by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training to be designated as a permanent employee of the district, they shall serve a probationary period of not less than one year of paid service from their date of appointment to that full-time position. A permanent employee who accepts a promotion and fails to complete the probationary period for that promotional classification, shall be employed in the position from which the employee was promoted.
(b)(1)An employee designated as a permanent employee shall be subject to disciplinary action only for cause as prescribed by rule or regulation of the governing board, but the governing boards determination of the sufficiency of the cause for disciplinary action shall be conclusive. cause. Except as specified in paragraph (2), cause shall be determined by an impartial third-party hearing officer paid by the community college district and jointly selected by the district and the employee or their exclusive representative, unless the exclusive representative and the district have entered into a collective bargaining agreement pursuant to Chapter 10.7 (commencing with Section 3540) of Division 4 of Title 1 of the Government Code providing an alternative method of determining cause.
(2)The governing board of a community college district shall make the determination of cause for discipline for any peace officer as defined in Section 830.2 of the Penal Code.
(c)The governing board shall adopt rules of procedure for disciplinary proceedings that shall contain a provision for informing the employee by written notice of the specific charges against the employee, a statement of the employees right to a hearing on those charges, and the time within which the hearing may be requested which shall be not less than five days after service of the notice to the employee, and a card or paper, the signing and filing of which shall constitute a demand for hearing, and a denial of all charges. The burden of proof shall remain with the governing board, and any rule or regulation to the contrary shall be void.
(d)Disciplinary action shall not be taken for any cause that arose before the employee became permanent, or for any cause that arose more than two years preceding the date of the filing of the notice of cause, unless the cause was concealed or not disclosed by the employee when it could be reasonably assumed that the employee should have disclosed the facts to the employing district.
(e)This section shall not be construed to prohibit the governing board, pursuant to the terms of an agreement with an employee organization under Chapter 10.7 (commencing with Section 3540) of Division 4 of Title 1 of the Government Code, from delegating its authority to determine whether sufficient cause exists for disciplinary action against classified employees, excluding peace officers as defined in Section 830.32 of the Penal Code, to an impartial third-party hearing officer. However, the governing board shall retain authority to review the determination under the standards set forth in Section 1286.2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.(f)(e)(1)Except as specified in paragraph (2), a permanent employee who timely requests a hearing on charges against the employee shall not be suspended without pay, suspended with a reduction in pay, demoted with a reduction in pay, or dismissed before a decision is rendered after the hearing unless the governing board, or an impartial third-party hearing officer provided pursuant to the terms of an agreement with an employee organization under Chapter 10.7 (commencing with Section 3540) of Division 4 of Title 1 of the Government Code, finds that at the time discipline was imposed at the conclusion of the review process specified in Skelly v. State Personnel Bd. (1975) 15 Cal.3d 194, the employer demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the employee engaged in criminal misconduct, misconduct that presents a risk of harm to students, staff, or property, or committed habitual violations of the districts policies or regulations.
(2)If a hearing on the charges will be conducted by an impartial third-party hearing officer or the governing board pursuant to subdivision (e), the The community college district may stop paying a permanent employee before a decision is rendered after 30 calendar days from the date the hearing is requested.
(3)To the extent that this subdivision conflicts with a provision of a collective bargaining agreement entered into by a public school employer and an exclusive bargaining representative before January 1, 2023, pursuant to Chapter 10.7 (commencing with Section 3540) of Division 4 of Title 1 of the Government Code, this subdivision shall not apply to the community college district until the expiration or renewal of that collective bargaining agreement.
(g)(f)This section shall apply only to districts not incorporating the merit system as outlined in Article 3 (commencing with Section 88060).
(h)(g)To the extent that this section, as amended by Assembly Bill 275 of the 202122 Regular Session, conflicts with a provision of a collective bargaining agreement entered into by a public school employer and an exclusive bargaining representative before January 1, 2022, pursuant to Chapter 10.7 (commencing with Section 3540) of Division 4 of Title 1 of the Government Code, the changes made to this section by Assembly Bill 275 of the 202122 Regular Session shall not apply to the community college district until expiration or renewal of that collective bargaining agreement.
SEC. 3.If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
|
Date
|
Status
|
|---|---|
| Jan 25, 2024 | Veto sustained. |
| Jan 25, 2024 | Stricken from file. |
| Oct 7, 2023 | In Senate. Consideration of Governor's veto pending. |
| Oct 7, 2023 | Vetoed by the Governor. |
| Sep 18, 2023 | Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 3 p.m. |
| Sep 12, 2023 | Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 28. Noes 10. Page 2675.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling. |
| Sep 11, 2023 | In Senate. Concurrence in Assembly amendments pending. |
| Sep 11, 2023 | Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 61. Noes 17. Page 3157.) Ordered to the Senate. |
| Sep 6, 2023 | Read third time and amended. |
| Sep 6, 2023 | Ordered to third reading. |
| Sep 5, 2023 | Read second time. Ordered to third reading. |
| Sep 1, 2023 | From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 11. Noes 4.) (September 1). |
| Aug 16, 2023 | August 16 set for first hearing. Placed on suspense file. |
| Jun 29, 2023 | Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR. |
| Jun 28, 2023 | From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 8. Noes 3.) (June 27). |
| Jun 14, 2023 | From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on HIGHER ED. (Ayes 5. Noes 1.) (June 14). Re-referred to Com. on HIGHER ED. |
| Jun 1, 2023 | Referred to Coms. on P.E. & R. and HIGHER ED. |
| May 25, 2023 | In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk. |
| May 24, 2023 | Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 28. Noes 11. Page 1279.) Ordered to the Assembly. |
| May 22, 2023 | Read second time. Ordered to third reading. |
| May 18, 2023 | Read second time and amended. Ordered to second reading. |
| May 18, 2023 | From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 5. Noes 2. Page 1170.) (May 18). |
| May 12, 2023 | Set for hearing May 18. |
| May 1, 2023 | May 1 hearing: Placed on APPR suspense file. |
| Apr 21, 2023 | Set for hearing May 1. |
| Apr 19, 2023 | From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 4. Noes 2. Page 790.) (April 19). Re-referred to Com. on APPR. |
| Apr 14, 2023 | Set for hearing April 19. |
| Apr 13, 2023 | From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on ED. (Ayes 4. Noes 1. Page 712.) (April 12). Re-referred to Com. on ED. |
| Mar 21, 2023 | Set for hearing April 12. |
| Mar 21, 2023 | From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on L., P.E. & R. |
| Feb 22, 2023 | Referred to Coms. on L., P.E. & R. and ED. |
| Feb 14, 2023 | From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 16. |
| Feb 13, 2023 | Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print. |
|
Date
|
Description
|
Location
|
Votes
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 12, 2023 | Unfinished Business SB433 Cortese Concurrence | Senate Floor |
Passed |
|
| Sep 11, 2023 | SB 433 Cortese Senate Third Reading By McKinnor | Assembly Floor |
Passed |
|
| Sep 1, 2023 | Do pass. | Assembly Standing Committee on Appropriations |
Passed |
|
| Jun 27, 2023 | Do pass as amended and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations] | Assembly Standing Committee on Higher Education |
Passed |
|
| Jun 14, 2023 | Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Higher Education] | Assembly Standing Committee on Public Employment and Retirement |
Passed |
|
| May 24, 2023 | Senate 3rd Reading SB433 Cortese | Senate Floor |
Passed |
|
| May 18, 2023 | Do pass as amended | Senate Standing Committee on Appropriations |
Passed |
|
| May 1, 2023 | Placed on suspense file | Senate Standing Committee on Appropriations |
Passed |
|
| Apr 19, 2023 | Do pass, but first be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations] | Senate Standing Committee on Education |
Passed |
|
| Apr 12, 2023 | Do pass, but first be re-referred to the Committee on [Education] | Senate Standing Committee on Labor, Public Employment and Retirement |
Passed |
This list shows positions taken on this bill by organizations on the date displayed, which is linked to the original source.
Positions by individuals are not included.
|
Organization
|
Position
|
Date
|
|---|---|---|
| American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees | ** Support | |
| Association Of California Community College Administrators | ** Against | |
| Association Of California School Administrators | ** Against | |
| California Association Of School Business Officials | ** Against | |
| California Federation Of Teachers | ** Support | |
| California Labor Federation | ** Support | |
| California School Boards Association | ** Against | |
| California School Employees Association | ** Support | |
| California State Council of Service Employees International Union | ** Support | |
| California State University Employee's Union | * Support | Jun 27, 2023 |
| California Teachers Association | ** Support | |
| Central Valley Education Coalition | ** Against | |
| Kern County Office of Education | ** Against | |
| Kern County Superintendent of Schools Office | ** Against | |
| miracosta community college district | ** Against | |
| Office of Riverside County Superintendent of Schools | * Against | Jun 14, 2023 |
| Orange County Department Of Education | ** Against | |
| Peace Officers Research Association Of California | ** Against | |
| Riverside County Office Of Education | ** Against | |
| School Employers Association Of California | ** Against | |
| Small School Districts Association | ** Against |
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478 | SB 433 |
VETO
Bill No: SB 433
Author: Cortese (D)
Amended: 9/6/23
Vote: 27
SENATE LABOR, PUB. EMP. & RET. COMMITTEE: 4-1, 4/12/23
AYES: Cortese, Durazo, Laird, Smallwood-Cuevas
NOES: Wilk
SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE: 4-2, 4/19/23
AYES: Newman, Cortese, McGuire, Smallwood-Cuevas
NOES: Ochoa Bogh, Glazer
NO VOTE RECORDED: Wilk
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-2, 5/18/23
AYES: Portantino, Ashby, Bradford, Wahab, Wiener
NOES: Jones, Seyarto
SENATE FLOOR: 28-11, 5/24/23
AYES: Archuleta, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Caballero, Cortese, Durazo, Eggman, Gonzalez, Hurtado, Laird, Limón, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener
NOES: Alvarado-Gil, Dahle, Dodd, Glazer, Grove, Jones, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Seyarto, Wilk
NO VOTE RECORDED: Allen
SENATE FLOOR: 28-10, 9/12/23
AYES: Allen, Archuleta, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Cortese, Durazo, Eggman, Gonzalez, Hurtado, Laird, Limón, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener
NOES: Alvarado-Gil, Dahle, Glazer, Grove, Jones, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Seyarto, Wilk
NO VOTE RECORDED: Caballero, Dodd
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 61-17, 9/11/23 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: Classified school and community college employees: disciplinary hearings: appeals: impartial third-party hearing officers
SOURCE: California School Employees Association
DIGEST:
This bill makes changes to the K-12 school and community college (CCC) disciplinary process for classified employees and principally allows a school or community college employee, excluding a peace officer, facing discipline from the employer to appeal that disciplinary action to an impartial third-party hearing officer paid by the employer and jointly selected by the employer and the employee or the employee’s union unless the union and the employer have entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) providing an alternative method of appealing disciplinary action.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
- Requires that each person employed by a county superintendent of schools in a position not requiring certification qualifications and whose salary the county school service fund pays, to be employed in accordance with rules and regulations governing disciplinary proceedings that apply to classified employees of a K-12 or CCC district. (ED § 1311)
- Authorizes K-12 and CCC classified employees to elect a merit (i.e., civil service) system for their district whereby the district’s board establishes a personnel commission and personnel director to administer personnel rules established in statute. (ED §§ 45220 et seq. and §§ 88050 et seq.)
- Establishes rules and regulations governing all K-12 and CCC classified personnel including those in non-merit districts (i.e., where a district has not established a merit system and the governing board retains direct decision authority over classified personnel issues). Key provisions related to the disciplinary process for classified employees do the following:
- Require K-12 and CCC district boards to prescribe written rules and regulations governing classified personnel management that must be printed and made available to classified service employees whom the district designates as permanent after serving a probationary period not to exceed the longer of six months or 130 days of paid service, or one-year for peace officer employees, as specified.
- Provide that a K-12 or CCC district may discipline their permanent classified employees only for cause as prescribed by board rule or regulation but also provide that the board’s determination of sufficiency of the cause for disciplinary action is conclusive.
- Require a district board to adopt rules of procedure for disciplinary proceedings that provide for the employees’ due process rights, as specified; place the evidentiary burden of proof on the board; and void any contrary rule or regulation.
- Prohibit a district from imposing disciplinary action for any cause that arose prior to the employee attaining permanent status, or for any cause that arose more than two years before the district filed the notice of cause, unless the employee concealed or failed to disclose the cause when the employee reasonably should have disclosed the facts to the district.
- Clarify that a board continues to have authority to delegate disciplinary determinations to an impartial third party hearing officer, as specified, pursuant to a bargaining agreement but must retain its authority to review the hearing officer’s determination pursuant to Civil Procedure Code Section 1286.2.
- Require a board to delegate cases involving disciplinary action against an employee for allegations of egregious conduct involving a minor, to an administrative law judge, as specified, and make the judge’s ruling binding on all parties.
- Prohibit the board, if the employee timely requests a hearing, from suspending the employee without pay or with reduced pay or from dismissing the employee before the board renders its decision at a hearing on the charges.
- However, the board may do so if an impartial third-party hearing officer finds at a preliminary (Skelly) hearing that the district demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the employee engaged in criminal or risky misconduct, as specified.
- If the board uses an impartial third-party hearing officer, as specified, to conduct the hearing on the charges, the board may suspend the employee’s pay, before the determination on the charges, 30 days after the employee requested the hearing.
- Provide that provisions involving classified employee discipline only apply to districts that have not incorporated the merit system (i.e., have not adopted a personnel commission, as specified).
(ED §§ 45113 et seq. and §§ 88013 et seq.)
- Requires a notice of disciplinary action to contain: a statement in ordinary and concise language of the specific acts and omissions upon which the disciplinary action is based; a statement of the cause of the action to be taken; and, if there is a claim that an employee has violated a rule or regulation of the employer, the rule or regulation. The provision also describes when a notice is insufficient and the consequences when a notice violates the provision’s requirements. (ED § 45116 and § 88016)
- Establishes the Education Employer-Employee Relations Act (EERA), which provides a statutory framework under California law governing employer-employee relations within the public schools and community college system and authorizing collective bargaining between school employers and their school employees, as specified. (Government Code (GC) § 3540 et seq.)
- Establishes the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB), a quasi-judicial administrative agency charged with resolving disputes and enforcing the statutory duties and rights of public agency employers and employee organizations, but provides the City and County of Los Angeles a local alternative to PERB oversight. (GC §3541 et seq.)
This bill:
- Provides that relating to nonmerit K-12 school districts:
- Authorizes a permanent classified school district employee, excluding a peace officer, to appeal a disciplinary action to an impartial third-party hearing officer paid, by the school district, and jointly selected by the district and the employee or the employee’s union from a list of seven arbitrators from the California State Mediation and Conciliation Service (CSMCS), unless the union and the district enter into an agreement that provides for an alternative method of disciplinary appeal or selection of an impartial third-party hearing officer. The impartial third-party hearing officer must preside over the hearing and provide a determination as to the outcome of the disciplinary action.
- Requires an impartial third-party hearing officer to delegate its authority to a judge to determine whether sufficient cause exists for disciplinary action against a classified employee involving allegations of egregious misconduct and involving a minor. The ruling of the judge must be binding upon all parties.
- Defines "disciplinary action" to mean dismissals and suspensions of classified employees and demotions of nonsupervisory classified employees, but does not include verbal or written reprimands or warnings, and "hearing officer" to mean an arbitrator selected by striking from a list of seven arbitrators to be obtained by the parties from the CSMCS, unless the parties agree upon another method of selecting a hearing officer.
- Increases the timeframe in which a hearing relating to disciplinary charges may be requested by an employee from not less than five days, to 30 days, after service of the notice to the employee.
- Provides that relating to nonmerit community college districts:
- Provides that if a classified community college district employee requests a hearing on charges against the employee, an impartial third-party hearing officer, paid for by the district and jointly selected by the district and the employee or the employee’s union must preside over the hearing and provide a determination as to the outcome of the disciplinary action.
- Provides that the impartial third-party hearing officer's determination must be subject to judicial review on petition of the governing board or the employee, and provides that the court review and exercise its independent judgment on the evidence. The proceeding must be set for a hearing at the earliest possible date and take precedence over all other cases, except older matters of the same character and matters to which the law gives special precedence.
- Applies these provisions to classified employees employed by a JPA established by one or more community college districts.
- Provides that if these provisions conflict with those of a collective bargaining agreement, as provided, before January 1, 2024, these provisions do not apply to a community college district until the collective bargaining agreement is expired or renewed.
- Defines "disciplinary action" to not include verbal or written reprimands or warnings, and "hearing officer" to mean an arbitrator selected by striking from a list of seven arbitrators to be obtained by the parties from the CSMCS, unless the parties agree upon another method of selecting a hearing officer.
- Makes other changes for these purposes, and includes provisions relating to reimbursement, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that costs are mandated by the state.
Related/Prior Legislation
AB 472 (Wicks, 2023) requires school and community college districts to pay a classified employee upon returning to service for the district for the period of an involuntary leave of absence after the proceedings of a charge of a criminal offense, investigation, or job-related administrative determination are found in favor of the employee. The bill is in engrossing and enrollment.
AB 2413 (Carrillo, Chapter 913, Statutes of 2022) prohibited school and community college districts from suspending, demoting, or dismissing without pay a permanent, classified employee who timely requests a hearing on the charges against the employee before a decision is rendered on the matter.
AB 275 (Medina, Chapter 556, Statutes of 2021) reduced the probation period for classified community college employees in non-merit districts from one year to the longer of 6 months or 130 days of paid service.
AB 486 (Committee on Education, Chapter 666, Statutes of 2021), the annual K-12 education policy omnibus bill, included changes under ED Section 45113 regarding probation periods for school peace officer and public safety dispatchers.
AB 2609 (Medina, 2020) was substantially the same as AB 275 (Medina, 2021). The Assembly Higher Education Committee held the bill.
AB 1353 (Wick, Chapter 542, Statutes of 2019) reduced the maximum length of the probationary period for K-12 classified school employees working in non-merit based districts from one year to a period not exceeding six months or 130 days of paid service, whichever is longer.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes
According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, this bill would result in ongoing Proposition 98 General Fund costs, of an unknown, but potentially significant amount, to nonmerit districts to pay for a third-party hearing officer to settle disciplinary appeal hearings. Annual costs would depend on the number and scope of such proceedings each year. The costs associated with a single hearing can exceed $10,000 for a complicated matter.
The state would need to reimburse these costs to school districts and community college districts, if the Commission on State Mandates determines the bill’s requirements to be a reimbursable state mandate.
SUPPORT: (Verified 10/12/23)
California School Employees Association (source)
American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees
California Federation of Teachers
California Labor Federation
California State Council of Service Employees International Union
California Teachers Association
OPPOSITION: (Verified 10/12/23)
Association of California Community College Administrators
Association of California School Administrators
California Association of School Business Officials
California School Boards Association
Central Valley Education Coalition
Kern County Office of Education
Kern County Superintendent of Schools Office
Miracosta Community College District
Orange County Department of Education
Peace Officers Research Association of California
Riverside County Office of Education
School Employers Association of California
Small School Districts Association
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the sponsor, “Discipline appeal hearings for classified school employees are normally decided by school district or community college governing boards. These boards are typically the same body that voted on the initial disciplinary decision. It is unfair for the same board that took the initial vote to discipline an employee to also be the appellate body.”
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: According to the California School Boards Association, “This bill would delete a school district’s authority to make the ultimate disciplinary action against a classified staff person and place it into the hands of an impartial third-party hearing officers to determine whether sufficient cause exists, unless the staff person is a licensed peace officer. It would also require school districts to fund the costs associated with obtaining a disciplinary ruling for cause from an impartial third-party hearing officer and jointly selected by the district and union.
“Fundamentally, this measure removes all authority of a duly elected school board to render personnel decision over the classified staff of the district. This is contrary to the spirit of local control and removes yet another layer of local school board governance authority and delegates that authority to an unelected entity.”
GOVERNOR'S VETO MESSAGE:
This bill requires an impartial third-party hearing officer to hear disciplinary appeals of permanent classified personnel at school or community college nonmerit districts. This bill also requires the district to pay for the third-party hearing officer, and for the third-party hearing officer to be jointly selected by the district and the classified employee from a list of arbitrators, unless the parties agree otherwise.
Under the status quo for certificated employees, the district absorbs the full cost of appeals hearings if the employee prevails. If it is determined that the certificated employee should be dismissed or suspended, the cost is shared equally with the State and the district. This bill for classified employees requires districts to bear the full costs of a disciplinary hearing before an arbitrator, no matter the outcome. This could increase the number of appeals and would create significant costs for the State and must be considered in the annual budget in the context of all state funding priorities.
In partnership with the Legislature, we enacted a budget that closed a shortfall of more than $30 billion through balanced solutions that avoided deep program cuts and protected education, health care, climate, public safety, and social service programs that are relied on by millions of Californians. This year, however, the Legislature sent me bills outside of this budget process that, if all enacted, would add nearly $19 billion of unaccounted costs in the budget, of which $11 billion would be ongoing.
With our state facing continuing economic risk and revenue uncertainty, it is important to remain disciplined when considering bills with significant fiscal implications, such as this measure.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 61-17, 9/11/23
AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Alvarez, Arambula, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Cervantes, Connolly, Mike Fong, Friedman, Gabriel, Garcia, Gipson, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Holden, Irwin, Jackson, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, McCarty, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Stephanie Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Rendon, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Santiago, Schiavo, Ting, Valencia, Villapudua, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Robert Rivas
NOES: Alanis, Chen, Megan Dahle, Davies, Dixon, Essayli, Flora, Vince Fong, Gallagher, Hoover, Mathis, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Sanchez, Ta, Waldron, Wallis
NO VOTE RECORDED: Lackey, Soria
Prepared by: Glenn Miles / L., P.E. & R. / (916) 651-1556
10/19/23 10:40:49
**** END ****
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478 | SB 433 |
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Bill No: SB 433
Author: Cortese (D)
Amended: 9/6/23
Vote: 21
SENATE LABOR, PUB. EMP. & RET. COMMITTEE: 4-1, 4/12/23
AYES: Cortese, Durazo, Laird, Smallwood-Cuevas
NOES: Wilk
SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE: 4-2, 4/19/23
AYES: Newman, Cortese, McGuire, Smallwood-Cuevas
NOES: Ochoa Bogh, Glazer
NO VOTE RECORDED: Wilk
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-2, 5/18/23
AYES: Portantino, Ashby, Bradford, Wahab, Wiener
NOES: Jones, Seyarto
SENATE FLOOR: 28-11, 5/24/23
AYES: Archuleta, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Caballero, Cortese, Durazo, Eggman, Gonzalez, Hurtado, Laird, Limón, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener
NOES: Alvarado-Gil, Dahle, Dodd, Glazer, Grove, Jones, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Seyarto, Wilk
NO VOTE RECORDED: Allen
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 61-17, 9/11/23 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: Classified school and community college employees: disciplinary hearings: appeals: impartial third-party hearing officers
SOURCE: California School Employees Association
DIGEST:
This bill makes changes to the K-12 school and community college (CCC) disciplinary process for classified employees and principally allows a school or community college employee, excluding a peace officer, facing discipline from the employer to appeal that disciplinary action to an impartial third-party hearing officer paid by the employer and jointly selected by the employer and the employee or the employee’s union unless the union and the employer have entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) providing an alternative method of appealing disciplinary action.
Assembly Amendments
- Increase the time an employee may request a hearing relating to disciplinary charges to not less than 30 days after service of the notice to the employee.
- Define, for K-12 employers, “disciplinary action” to mean “dismissals and suspensions of classified employees and demotions of nonsupervisory classified employees, and does not include reprimands or warnings whether verbal or written.”
- Define, for K-12 and CCC employers, “hearing officer” to mean “an arbitrator selected by striking from a list of seven arbitrators obtained by the parties from the California State Mediation and Conciliation Service, unless the parties agree upon another method of selecting a hearing officer.”
- Clarify that either the governing board or the employee may petition for judicial review of the impartial third-party hearing officer’s determination, as specified.
- Apply the provisions relating to an impartial third-party hearing officer to CCC districts after the expiration or renewal of their MOUs, if the bill’s provisions conflict with an MOU agreed to before January 1, 2024.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
- Requires that each person employed by a county superintendent of schools in a position not requiring certification qualifications and whose salary the county school service fund pays, to be employed in accordance with rules and regulations governing disciplinary proceedings that apply to classified employees of a K-12 or CCC district. (ED § 1311)
- Authorizes K-12 and CCC classified employees to elect a merit (i.e., civil service) system for their district whereby the district’s board establishes a personnel commission and personnel director to administer personnel rules established in statute. (ED §§ 45220 et seq. and §§ 88050 et seq.)
- Establishes rules and regulations governing all K-12 and CCC classified personnel including those in non-merit districts (i.e., where a district has not established a merit system and the governing board retains direct decision authority over classified personnel issues). Key provisions related to the disciplinary process for classified employees do the following:
- Require K-12 and CCC district boards to prescribe written rules and regulations governing classified personnel management that must be printed and made available to classified service employees whom the district designates as permanent after serving a probationary period not to exceed the longer of six months or 130 days of paid service, or one-year for peace officer employees, as specified.
- Provide that a K-12 or CCC district may discipline their permanent classified employees only for cause as prescribed by board rule or regulation but also provide that the board’s determination of sufficiency of the cause for disciplinary action is conclusive.
- Require a district board to adopt rules of procedure for disciplinary proceedings that provide for the employees’ due process rights, as specified; place the evidentiary burden of proof on the board; and void any contrary rule or regulation.
- Prohibit a district from imposing disciplinary action for any cause that arose prior to the employee attaining permanent status, or for any cause that arose more than two years before the district filed the notice of cause, unless the employee concealed or failed to disclose the cause when the employee reasonably should have disclosed the facts to the district.
- Clarify that a board continues to have authority to delegate disciplinary determinations to an impartial third party hearing officer, as specified, pursuant to a bargaining agreement but must retain its authority to review the hearing officer’s determination pursuant to Civil Procedure Code Section 1286.2.
- Require a board to delegate cases involving disciplinary action against an employee for allegations of egregious conduct involving a minor, to an administrative law judge, as specified, and make the judge’s ruling binding on all parties.
- Prohibit the board, if the employee timely requests a hearing, from suspending the employee without pay or with reduced pay or from dismissing the employee before the board renders its decision at a hearing on the charges.
- However, the board may do so if an impartial third-party hearing officer finds at a preliminary (Skelly) hearing that the district demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the employee engaged in criminal or risky misconduct, as specified.
- If the board uses an impartial third-party hearing officer, as specified, to conduct the hearing on the charges, the board may suspend the employee’s pay, before the determination on the charges, 30 days after the employee requested the hearing.
- Provide that provisions involving classified employee discipline only apply to districts that have not incorporated the merit system (i.e., have not adopted a personnel commission, as specified).
(ED §§ 45113 et seq. and §§ 88013 et seq.)
- Requires a notice of disciplinary action to contain: a statement in ordinary and concise language of the specific acts and omissions upon which the disciplinary action is based; a statement of the cause of the action to be taken; and, if there is a claim that an employee has violated a rule or regulation of the employer, the rule or regulation. The provision also describes when a notice is insufficient and the consequences when a notice violates the provision’s requirements. (ED § 45116 and § 88016)
- Establishes the Education Employer-Employee Relations Act (EERA), which provides a statutory framework under California law governing employer-employee relations within the public schools and community college system and authorizing collective bargaining between school employers and their school employees, as specified. (Government Code (GC) § 3540 et seq.)
- Establishes the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB), a quasi-judicial administrative agency charged with resolving disputes and enforcing the statutory duties and rights of public agency employers and employee organizations, but provides the City and County of Los Angeles a local alternative to PERB oversight. (GC §3541 et seq.)
This bill:
- Provides that relating to nonmerit K-12 school districts:
- Authorizes a permanent classified school district employee, excluding a peace officer, to appeal a disciplinary action to an impartial third-party hearing officer paid, by the school district, and jointly selected by the district and the employee or the employee’s union from a list of seven arbitrators from the California State Mediation and Conciliation Service (CSMCS), unless the union and the district enter into an agreement that provides for an alternative method of disciplinary appeal or selection of an impartial third-party hearing officer. The impartial third-party hearing officer must preside over the hearing and provide a determination as to the outcome of the disciplinary action.
- Requires an impartial third-party hearing officer to delegate its authority to a judge to determine whether sufficient cause exists for disciplinary action against a classified employee involving allegations of egregious misconduct and involving a minor. The ruling of the judge must be binding upon all parties.
- Defines "disciplinary action" to mean dismissals and suspensions of classified employees and demotions of nonsupervisory classified employees, but does not include verbal or written reprimands or warnings, and "hearing officer" to mean an arbitrator selected by striking from a list of seven arbitrators to be obtained by the parties from the CSMCS, unless the parties agree upon another method of selecting a hearing officer.
- Increases the timeframe in which a hearing relating to disciplinary charges may be requested by an employee from not less than five days, to 30 days, after service of the notice to the employee.
- Provides that relating to nonmerit community college districts:
- Provides that if a classified community college district employee requests a hearing on charges against the employee, an impartial third-party hearing officer, paid for by the district and jointly selected by the district and the employee or the employee’s union must preside over the hearing and provide a determination as to the outcome of the disciplinary action.
- Provides that the impartial third-party hearing officer's determination must be subject to judicial review on petition of the governing board or the employee, and provides that the court review and exercise its independent judgment on the evidence. The proceeding must be set for a hearing at the earliest possible date and take precedence over all other cases, except older matters of the same character and matters to which the law gives special precedence.
- Applies these provisions to classified employees employed by a JPA established by one or more community college districts.
- Provides that if these provisions conflict with those of a collective bargaining agreement, as provided, before January 1, 2024, these provisions do not apply to a community college district until the collective bargaining agreement is expired or renewed.
- Defines "disciplinary action" to not include verbal or written reprimands or warnings, and "hearing officer" to mean an arbitrator selected by striking from a list of seven arbitrators to be obtained by the parties from the CSMCS, unless the parties agree upon another method of selecting a hearing officer.
- Makes other changes for these purposes, and includes provisions relating to reimbursement, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that costs are mandated by the state.
Related/Prior Legislation
AB 472 (Wicks, 2023) requires school and community college districts to pay a classified employee upon returning to service for the district for the period of an involuntary leave of absence after the proceedings of a charge of a criminal offense, investigation, or job-related administrative determination are found in favor of the employee. The bill is in engrossing and enrollment.
AB 2413 (Carrillo, Chapter 913, Statutes of 2022) prohibited school and community college districts from suspending, demoting, or dismissing without pay a permanent, classified employee who timely requests a hearing on the charges against the employee before a decision is rendered on the matter.
AB 275 (Medina, Chapter 556, Statutes of 2021) reduced the probation period for classified community college employees in non-merit districts from one year to the longer of 6 months or 130 days of paid service.
AB 486 (Committee on Education, Chapter 666, Statutes of 2021), the annual K-12 education policy omnibus bill, included changes under ED Section 45113 regarding probation periods for school peace officer and public safety dispatchers.
AB 2609 (Medina, 2020) was substantially the same as AB 275 (Medina, 2021). The Assembly Higher Education Committee held the bill.
AB 1353 (Wick, Chapter 542, Statutes of 2019) reduced the maximum length of the probationary period for K-12 classified school employees working in non-merit based districts from one year to a period not exceeding six months or 130 days of paid service, whichever is longer.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes
According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, this bill would result in ongoing Proposition 98 General Fund costs, of an unknown, but potentially significant amount, to nonmerit districts to pay for a third-party hearing officer to settle disciplinary appeal hearings. Annual costs would depend on the number and scope of such proceedings each year. The costs associated with a single hearing can exceed $10,000 for a complicated matter.
The state would need to reimburse these costs to school districts and community college districts, if the Commission on State Mandates determines the bill’s requirements to be a reimbursable state mandate.
SUPPORT: (Verified 9/11/23)
California School Employees Association (source)
American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees
California Federation of Teachers
California Labor Federation
California State Council of Service Employees International Union
OPPOSITION: (Verified 9/11/23)
Association of California Community College Administrators
Association of California School Administrators
California Association of School Business Officials
California School Boards Association
Central Valley Education Coalition
Kern County Office of Education
Kern County Superintendent of Schools Office
Miracosta Community College District
Orange County Department of Education
Peace Officers Research Association of California
Riverside County Office of Education
School Employers Association of California
Small School Districts Association
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the sponsor, “Discipline appeal hearings for classified school employees are normally decided by school district or community college governing boards. These boards are typically the same body that voted on the initial disciplinary decision. It is unfair for the same board that took the initial vote to discipline an employee to also be the appellate body.”
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: According to the California School Boards Association, “This bill would delete a school district’s authority to make the ultimate disciplinary action against a classified staff person and place it into the hands of an impartial third-party hearing officers to determine whether sufficient cause exists, unless the staff person is a licensed peace officer. It would also require school districts to fund the costs associated with obtaining a disciplinary ruling for cause from an impartial third-party hearing officer and jointly selected by the district and union.
“Fundamentally, this measure removes all authority of a duly elected school board to render personnel decision over the classified staff of the district. This is contrary to the spirit of local control and removes yet another layer of local school board governance authority and delegates that authority to an unelected entity.”
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 61-17, 9/11/23
AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Alvarez, Arambula, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Cervantes, Connolly, Mike Fong, Friedman, Gabriel, Garcia, Gipson, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Holden, Irwin, Jackson, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, McCarty, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Stephanie Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Rendon, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Santiago, Schiavo, Ting, Valencia, Villapudua, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Robert Rivas
NOES: Alanis, Chen, Megan Dahle, Davies, Dixon, Essayli, Flora, Vince Fong, Gallagher, Hoover, Mathis, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Sanchez, Ta, Waldron, Wallis
NO VOTE RECORDED: Lackey, Soria
Prepared by: Glenn Miles / L., P.E. & R. / (916) 651-1556
9/11/23 19:49:38
SENATE THIRD READING
STR Bill Id:SB 433
Author:(Cortese)
As Amended Ver:September 6, 2023
Majority vote
SUMMARY
Authorize a permanent classified school employee, excluding a peace officer, of a nonmerit school district, community college district or joint powers authority (JPA) that includes a school district, to have a disciplinary matter heard by an impartial third-party hearing officer, among other provisions.
Major Provisions
- Relating to nonmerit school districts:
- Authorize a permanent classified employee, excluding a peace officer, of a school district to appeal a disciplinary action to an impartial third-party hearing officer paid for by the school district which must be jointly selected by the district and the employee or their employee organization from a list of seven arbitrators obtained from the California State Mediation and Conciliation Service (CSMCS), unless the employee organization and school district enter into an agreement that provides for an alternative method of disciplinary appeal or selecting an impartial third-party hearing officer. The impartial third-party hearing officer must preside over the hearing and provide a determination as to the outcome of the disciplinary action.
- Require an impartial third-party hearing officer to delegate its authority to a judge to determine whether sufficient cause exists for disciplinary action against a classified employee involving allegations of egregious misconduct and involving a minor. The ruling of the judge must be binding upon all parties.
- Define "disciplinary action" to mean dismissals and suspensions of classified employees and demotions of nonsupervisory classified employees, but does not include verbal or written reprimands or warnings, and "hearing officer" to mean an arbitrator selected by striking from a list of seven arbitrators to be obtained by the parties from the CSMCS, unless the parties agree upon another method of selecting a hearing officer.
- Increase the timeframe in which a hearing relating to disciplinary charges may be requested by an employee from not less than five days, to 30 days, after service of the notice to the employee.
- Relating to nonmerit community college districts:
- Provide that if a classified school employee of a community college district requests a hearing on charges against the employee, an impartial third-party hearing officer, paid for by the community college district and jointly selected by the district and the employee or their employee organization must preside over the hearing and provide a determination as to the outcome of the disciplinary action.
- Provide that the impartial third-party hearing officer's determination must be subject to judicial review on petition of the governing board or the employee, and the court to review and exercise its independent judgment on the evidence. The proceeding must be set for a hearing at the earliest possible date and take precedence over all other cases, within older matters of the same character and matters which special precedence is given by law.
- Apply these provisions to classified employees employed by a JPA established by one or more community college districts.
- Provide that if these provisions conflict with those of a collective bargaining agreement, as provided, before January 1, 2024, these provisions do not apply to a community college district until the collective bargaining agreement is expired or renewed.
- Define "disciplinary action" to not include verbal or written reprimands or warnings, and "hearing officer" to mean an arbitrator selected by striking from a list of seven arbitrators to be obtained by the parties from the CSMCS, unless the parties agree upon another method of selecting a hearing officer.
- Make other changes for these purposes, and include pro forma provisions relating to reimbursement, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that costs are mandated by the state.
COMMENTS
- Brief History of the Establishment of Merit Systems in California Public Schools
"Merit systems," also commonly referred to as district "civil service systems" relating to public education in California are independent of the school or community college district's governing board where the Personnel Commission of a "merit system" district is responsible for administering the hiring and retention of classified school employees through a statutory framework pursuant to the Education Code. In California, there approximately 100 of these systems that currently exist. These systems derive from the late 19th and early 20th century civil service movement that sought to curtail the "spoils" resulting from political patronage in the system whereby elected political candidates rewarded their supporters with government positions. These systems arose out of a particularly egregious school board decision to discharge over 700 classified employees in the 1930s upon the new board's election.
This history strongly suggests that the Legislature intended the merit system framework as a means to protect classified employees from local political mistreatment at a time prior to public sector collective bargaining, and in which such systems continue to presently exist. Generally, in the public education employment arena, districts that have not formally adopted the merit system are referred to as "nonmerit" districts. For such districts, employee disciplinary and termination matters are not addressed by a personnel commission.
- Due Process Rights of Public Employees
Generally, due process is a constitutional construction that consists of substantive (i.e., legal) and procedural (i.e., fairness [notice, hearing/opportunity to be heard]) rights afforded to individuals (and businesses). In sum, due process provides rights to make legal claims and to be heard in a court of law or other competent adjudicative forum regarding those claims.
Procedural due process also applies to permanent public employees to protect their employment rights, including those relating to discipline. Here, public employees have a right to a notice of disciplinary action, a copy of the materials on which the action is based, and an opportunity for the employee to respond to those charges to an impartial reviewer prior to discipline or termination being imposed. This pre-disciplinary hearing process for public employees is commonly referred to as a "Skelly Hearing" following a seminal judicial decision that involved a public employee surnamed Skelly in which the court held that permanent public employee status is a constitutionally protected property interest and because the employee has a protected property right to their job, they cannot be deprived of it without due process. Thus, a preliminary hearing must take place prior to the imposition of discipline upon, or termination of, the employee.
- Some Variations in the Disciplinary Process Exist Among Classified Staff and Faculty
Education Code Sections 87672 through 87683 provide the procedures by which a community college district must follow to penalize or dismiss full-time faculty. The procedure includes a notification of the disciplinary decision along with the reason for the disciplinary decision and the right for the faculty member to appeal. Unlike classified staff, faculty have the right to have an appeal hearing overseen by an arbitrator. The Education Code further explains since the governing board of the community college district is not the decision maker in the appeal hearing, they, along with the employee, can appeal the decision of the arbitrator to the judicial system for review.
This bill would provide comparable circumstances between classified staff in merit and non-merit districts by establishing an appeal process before an impartial thirty-party hearing officer for non-merit classified staff akin to their merit counterparts who are able to appeal disciplinary actions to a personnel commission.
- Equity Solutions and Maximizing Benefits for Underserved and Marginalized Communities
Pursuant to HR 39 (Gipson) of 2021, to continue the Assembly's commitment to investing in equity solutions and maximizing benefits for underserved and marginalized communities, legislative analyses of the Assembly must discuss the equity impact that a bill will, or may, have on such communities, if any.
This bill does not present a particular focus towards addressing equity in relation to maximizing benefits for underserved or marginalized communities as articulated in HR 39. However, under a broader context, the author asserts that most classified school employees are women and people of color whom are unfairly denied disciplinary appeal hearings conducted by a neutral party such as an arbitrator. Further, since disciplinary appeal hearings for community college faculty are conducted by arbitrators, this bill would help to provide some level of parity with such faculty as well as afford classified employee with neutrality relating to disciplinary appeal hearings.
- Please see the policy committee analyses for a full discussion of this bill.
According to the Author
"Classified employees are the lifeblood of a school. These employees drive our school buses, prepare and serve meals to children, and carry out essential office functions. They deserve the same due process rights as teachers. [This bill] promotes a more fair and equitable discipline system. Establishing impartial, third-party hearing officers to arbitrate over disciplinary actions will protect the rights and liberties of classified school staff."
Arguments in Support
Generally, several supporters express that because discipline appeal hearings for classified school employees are currently decided by school district or community college governing boards, and these boards are typically the same bodies that vote on initial disciplinary decisions, it is unfair for the same board that took the initial vote to discipline an employee to also be the appellate body. This bill would still allow unions and districts to negotiate alternative appeal processes in their collective bargaining agreements, and would require an impartial third-party hearing officer to determine on appeal if the employee should be subject to disciplinary action, and is consistent with the disciplinary appeal rights provided to teachers and community college faculty.
Arguments in Opposition
Generally, among other things, various opponents express that by removing the authority of a school or community college district to make the ultimate decision on whether to take significant disciplinary action, such as demotion, suspension, or dismissal, deferring the determination of the disciplinary action against an employee contingent upon the accessibility to an impartial third-party hearing officer would result in delayed decisions due to increased caseloads and delays in a hearing officer's ability to render a decision in a timely matter. Further, requiring a local education agency to schedule, fund, and wait for a hearing before an impartial third-party hearing officer would further delay necessary and time-sensitive disciplinary actions against an employee."
FISCAL COMMENTS
The Assembly Appropriations Committee notes that this bill would result in ongoing Proposition 98 General Fund costs, of an unknown, but potentially significant amount, to nonmerit districts to pay for a third-party hearing officer to settle disciplinary appeal hearings. Annual costs would depend on the number and scope of such proceedings each year. The costs associated with a single hearing can exceed $10,000 for a complicated matter.
The state would need to reimburse these costs to school districts and community college districts, if the Commission on State Mandates determines the bill's requirements to be a reimbursable state mandate.
VOTES
SENATE FLOOR: 28-11-1
YES: Archuleta, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Caballero, Cortese, Durazo, Eggman, Gonzalez, Hurtado, Laird, Limón, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener
NO: Alvarado-Gil, Dahle, Dodd, Glazer, Grove, Jones, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Seyarto, Wilk
ABS, ABST OR NV: Allen
ASM PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT AND RETIREMENT: 5-1-1
YES: McKinnor, Bryan, Haney, Stephanie Nguyen, Schiavo
NO: Vince Fong
ABS, ABST OR NV: Lackey
ASM HIGHER EDUCATION: 8-3-1
YES: Mike Fong, Addis, Arambula, Gabriel, Irwin, Ortega, Santiago, Weber
NO: Ta, Sanchez, Wallis
ABS, ABST OR NV: Low
ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 11-4-1
YES: Holden, Bryan, Calderon, Wendy Carrillo, Mike Fong, Hart, Lowenthal, Papan, Pellerin, Weber, Wilson
NO: Megan Dahle, Dixon, Mathis, Sanchez
ABS, ABST OR NV: Soria
UPDATED
VERSION: September 6, 2023
CONSULTANT: Michael Bolden / P. E. & R. / (916) 319-3957 FN: 0001721
SENATE THIRD READING
STR Bill Id:SB 433
Author:(Cortese)
As Amended Ver:June 29, 2023
Majority vote
SUMMARY
Authorizes a permanent classified school employee, excluding a peace officer, of a nonmerit school district, community college district or joint powers authority (JPA) that includes a school district, to have a disciplinary matter heard by an impartial third-party hearing officer, among other provisions.
Major Provisions
- Relating to nonmerit school districts:
- Authorize a permanent classified employee, excluding a peace officer, of a school district to appeal a disciplinary action to an impartial third-party hearing officer paid for by the school district which must be jointly selected by the district and the employee or their employee organization from a list of seven arbitrators obtained from the California State Mediation and Conciliation Service (CSMCS), unless the employee organization and school district enter into an agreement that provides for an alternative method of disciplinary appeal or selecting an impartial third-party hearing officer. The impartial third-party hearing officer must preside over the hearing and provide a determination as to the outcome of the disciplinary action.
- Require an impartial third-party hearing officer to delegate its authority to a judge to determine whether sufficient cause exists for disciplinary action against a classified employee involving allegations of egregious misconduct and involving a minor. The ruling of the judge must be binding upon all parties.
- Define "disciplinary action" to mean dismissals and suspensions of classified employees and demotions of nonsupervisory classified employees, but does not include verbal or written reprimands or warnings, and "hearing officer" to mean an arbitrator selected by striking from a list of seven arbitrators to be obtained by the parties from the CSMCS, unless the parties agree upon another method of selecting a hearing officer.
- Relating to nonmerit community college districts:
- Provide that if a classified school employee of a community college district requests a hearing on charges against the employee, an impartial third-party hearing officer, paid for by the community college district and jointly selected by the district and the employee or their employee organization must preside over the hearing and provide a determination as to the outcome of the disciplinary action.
- Provide that the impartial third-party hearing officer's determination must be subject to judicial review on petition of the governing board or the employee, and the court to review and exercise its independent judgment on the evidence. The proceeding must be set for a hearing at the earliest possible date and take precedence over all other cases, within older matters of the same character and matters which special precedence is given by law.
- Apply these provisions to classified employees employed by a JPA established by one or more community college districts.
- Provide that if these provisions conflict with those of a collective bargaining agreement, as provided, before January 1, 2024, these provisions do not apply to a community college district until the collective bargaining agreement is expired or renewed.
- Define "discplinary action" to not include verbal or written reprimands or warnings, and "hearing officer" to mean an arbitrator selected by striking from a list of seven arbitrators to be obtained by the parties from the CSMCS, unless the parties agree upon another method of selecting a hearing officer.
- Make other changes for these purposes, and include pro forma provisions relating to reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for costs, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that costs are mandated by the state.
COMMENTS
- Brief History of the Establishment of Merit Systems in California Public Schools
"Merit systems," also commonly referred to as district "civil service systems" relating to public education in California are independent of the school or community college district's governing board where the Personnel Commission of a "merit system" district is responsible for administering the hiring and retention of classified school employees through a statutory framework pursuant to the Education Code. In California, there approximately 100 of these systems that currently exist.
Merit systems derive from the late 19th and early 20th century civil service movement that sought to curtail the "spoils" resulting from political patronage in the system whereby elected political candidates rewarded their supporters with government positions. These systems arose out of a particularly egregious school board decision to discharge over 700 classified employees in the 1930s upon the new board's election.
This history strongly suggests that the Legislature intended the merit system framework as a means to protect classified employees from local political mistreatment at a time prior to public sector collective bargaining, and in which such systems continue to presently exist.
Generally, in the public education employment arena, districts that have not formally adopted the merit system are referred to as "nonmerit" districts. For such districts, employee disciplinary and termination matters are not addressed by a personnel commission.
- Due Process Rights of Public Employees
Generally, due process is a constitutional construction that consists of substantive (i.e., legal) and procedural (i.e., fairness [notice, hearing/opportunity to be heard]) rights afforded to individuals (and businesses). In sum, due process provides rights to make legal claims and to be heard in a court of law or other competent adjudicative forum regarding those claims.
Procedural due process also applies to permanent public employees to protect their employment rights, including those relating to discipline. Here, public employees have a right to a notice of disciplinary action, a copy of the materials on which the action is based, and an opportunity for the employee to respond to those charges to an impartial reviewer prior to discipline or termination being imposed. This pre-disciplinary hearing process for public employees is commonly referred to as a "Skelly Hearing" following a seminal judicial decision that involved a public employee surnamed Skelly in which the court held that permanent public employee status is a constitutionally protected property interest and because the employee has a protected property right to their job, they cannot be deprived of it without due process. Thus, a preliminary hearing must take place prior to the imposition of discipline upon, or termination of, the employee.
- Some Variations in the Disciplinary Process Exist Among Classified Staff and Faculty
Education Code Sections 87672 through 87683 provide the procedures by which a community college district must follow to penalize or dismiss full-time faculty. The procedure includes a notification of the disciplinary decision along with the reason for the disciplinary decision and the right for the faculty member to appeal. Unlike classified staff, faculty have the right to have an appeal hearing overseen by an arbitrator. The Education Code further explains since the governing board of the community college district is not the decision maker in the appeal hearing, they, along with the employee, can appeal the decision of the arbitrator to the judicial system for review.
This bill would provide comparable circumstances between classified staff in merit and non-merit districts by establishing an appeal process before an impartial thirty-party hearing officer for non-merit classified staff akin to their merit counterparts who are able to appeal disciplinary actions to a personnel commission.
- Equity Solutions and Maximizing Benefits for Underserved and Marginalized Communities
Pursuant to HR 39 (Gipson) of 2021, to continue the Assembly's commitment to investing in equity solutions and maximizing benefits for underserved and marginalized communities, legislative analyses of the Assembly must discuss the equity impact that a bill will, or may, have on such communities, if any.
This bill does not present a particular focus towards addressing equity in relation to maximizing benefits for underserved or marginalized communities as articulated in HR 39. However, under a broader context, information provided by the author asserts that most classified school employees are women and people of color whom are unfairly denied disciplinary appeal hearings conducted by a neutral party such as an arbitrator. Further, since disciplinary appeal hearings for community college faculty are conducted by arbitrators, this bill would help to provide some level of parity with such faculty as well as afford classified employee with neutrality relating to disciplinary appeal hearings.
- Please see the policy committee analyses for a full discussion of this bill.
According to the Author
"Classified employees are the lifeblood of a school. These employees drive our school buses, prepare and serve meals to children, and carry out essential office functions. They deserve the same due process rights as teachers. [This bill] promotes a more fair and equitable discipline system. Establishing impartial, third-party hearing officers to arbitrate over disciplinary actions will protect the rights and liberties of classified school staff."
Arguments in Support
The California School Employees Association (CSEA) states in part that, "[d]iscipline appeal hearings for classified school employees are currently decided by school district or community college governing boards. These boards are typically the same bodies that vote on initial disciplinary decisions. It is unfair for the same board that took the initial vote to discipline an employee to also be the appellate body. SB 433 would still allow unions and districts to negotiate alternative appeal processes in their collective bargaining agreements. [This bill] would require an impartial third-party hearing officer to determine on appeal if the employee should be subject to disciplinary action…," and "…"is consistent with the disciplinary appeal rights provided to teachers and community college faculty."
Both the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, and the California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO make statements regarding this bill similar to those of the CSEA.
Arguments in Opposition
The Association of California Community College Administrators states in part that, "[this bill] would remove the authority of a community college district to make the ultimate decision on whether to take significant disciplinary action, such as demotion, suspension, or dismissal, against a classified staff person and the ability of the [district] to reject the decision of the third-party hearing office," and "… "would also prove costly to districts, as they would be financially responsible for paying for the third-party official."
Among other things, the California School Boards Association states that, "[c]urrently, local education agencies (LEAs) negotiate how disciplinary appeals are handled and funded. However, this [bill] proposes that the LEA shoulder the entirety of the cost. Additionally, it mandates that the third-party hearing officer be selected jointly by the LEA and employee representative," which "… further add to the delay in resolving sensitive personnel matters, as it could lead to many otherwise legitimate hearing officers being excluded because the LEA and employee's representatives are unable to agree on a hearing officer. This would be further exacerbated in small LEAs in rural areas where there may only be one or two hearing officers available. Deferring the determination of the disciplinary action against an employee contingent upon the accessibility to an 'impartial third-party hearing officer' would also result in delayed decisions due to increased caseloads and delays in a hearing officer's ability to render a decision in a timely matter. Finally, requiring a LEA to schedule, fund, and wait for a hearing before an 'impartial third-party hearing officer' would further delay necessary and time-sensitive disciplinary actions against an employee."
FISCAL COMMENTS
The Assembly Appropriations Committee notes that this bill would result in ongoing Proposition 98 General Fund costs, of an unknown, but potentially significant amount, to nonmerit districts to pay for a third-party hearing officer to settle disciplinary appeal hearings. Annual costs would depend on the number and scope of such proceedings each year. The costs associated with a single hearing can exceed $10,000 for a complicated matter.
The state would need to reimburse these costs to school districts and community college districts, if the Commission on State Mandates determines the bill's requirements to be a reimbursable state mandate.
VOTES
SENATE FLOOR: 28-11-1
YES: Archuleta, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Caballero, Cortese, Durazo, Eggman, Gonzalez, Hurtado, Laird, Limón, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener
NO: Alvarado-Gil, Dahle, Dodd, Glazer, Grove, Jones, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Seyarto, Wilk
ABS, ABST OR NV: Allen
ASM PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT AND RETIREMENT: 5-1-1
YES: McKinnor, Bryan, Haney, Stephanie Nguyen, Schiavo
NO: Vince Fong
ABS, ABST OR NV: Lackey
ASM HIGHER EDUCATION: 8-3-1
YES: Mike Fong, Addis, Arambula, Gabriel, Irwin, Ortega, Santiago, Weber
NO: Ta, Sanchez, Wallis
ABS, ABST OR NV: Low
ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 11-4-1
YES: Holden, Bryan, Calderon, Wendy Carrillo, Mike Fong, Hart, Lowenthal, Papan, Pellerin, Weber, Wilson
NO: Megan Dahle, Dixon, Mathis, Sanchez
ABS, ABST OR NV: Soria
UPDATED
VERSION: June 29, 2023
CONSULTANT: Michael Bolden / P. E. & R. / (916) 319-3957 FN: 0001503
Date of Hearing: August 16, 2023
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Chris Holden, Chair
SBPCA Bill Id:SB 433
Author:(Cortese) – As Amended Ver:June 29, 2023
Policy Committee: | Public Employment and Retirement | Vote: | 5 - 1 |
Higher Education | 8 - 3 | ||
|
|
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: Yes Reimbursable: Yes
SUMMARY:
This bill requires an impartial third-party hearing officer to determine, on appeal, if a permanent classified school or community college district (district) employee at a non-merit district should be subject to disciplinary action.
Specifically, this bill requires, if a permanent classified employee of a district requests a hearing on the charges lodged against the employee, the third-party hearing officer to be paid for by the district and jointly selected by the district and the employee or their employee organization from a list of seven arbitrators obtained by the parties from the California State Mediation and Conciliation Service, unless the employee organization and the district agree otherwise. The bill extends these requirements to classified employees of any joint powers authorities that include a district, and to classified employees of a county superintendent of schools.
FISCAL EFFECT:
Ongoing Proposition 98 General Fund costs, of an unknown, but potentially significant amount, to nonmerit districts to pay for a third-party hearing officer to settle disciplinary appeal hearings. Annual costs would depend on the number and scope of such proceedings each year. The costs associated with a single hearing can exceed $10,000 for a complicated matter.
The state would need to reimburse these costs to school districts and community college districts, if the Commission on State Mandates determines the bill’s requirements to be a reimbursable state mandate.
COMMENTS:
- Purpose. According to a the author:
Under current law for nonmerit districts and community colleges, the default is that a governing board conducts a hearing if an employee exercises their right to challenge disciplinary action taken against the employee by the district. This deprives many classified employees of a fair appeal because governing boards typically vote to take the initial disciplinary action. It is unfair for the same board that voted to discipline an employee to also be the appellate body. This is also contrary to how discipline appeals for most other public employees, including teachers, are determined. While unions representing classified employees can bargain to have a third-party hearing officer, they do not benefit from this being the default as many other public employees do...
SB 433 would require an impartial third-party hearing officer to determine on appeal if a permanent classified employee in a non-merit district should be subject to disciplinary action.
- Background. A relatively small number of districts are considered “merit” system districts. Merit system districts operate similarly to state and federal governments’ civil service systems. The vast majority districts have not adopted a merit system, and are known as “nonmerit” districts. Nonmerit districts adhere to different rules than merit system districts. With regard to employee discipline, merit districts use personnel commissions while nonmerit districts adhere to certain procedures set forth in law. Under current law, nonmerit districts may subject a classified employee to disciplinary action, but must provide certain notifications and other due process rights. Current law allows districts to negotiate with an employee organization the terms of a classified employee’s appeal of a disciplinary action to a third party, but does not require it.
This bill explicitly allows a classified employee to appeal a disciplinary action to a third party. According to this bill’s proponents, although this provision could be negotiated under current law, they believe it should be the standard for better parity with other public employee appeal processes. According to proponents of this bill, absent collective bargaining, districts typically appeal cases back to the district’s governing board. The proponents of this bill do not believe this appeal process to be impartial.
- Parity. This bill does not provide parity with certificated school staff with regard to who covers the costs of a disciplinary appeal. For certificated school staff, if the Commission on Professional Competence (CPC) determines the employee should be dismissed or suspended, the governing board of the school district and the state General Fund are to share equally the expenses of the hearing. If the CPC determines the employee should not be dismissed or suspended, the governing board of the school district is to pay the expenses of the hearing. However, for community college districts, statute requires the district alone to pay the costs of the proceedings as determined by the arbitrator.
- Opposition. This bill is opposed by a coalition of school groups, including the CA School Boards Association, the Associations of CA School Administrators, CA Association of School Business Officials, and the Small School Districts Association. With regard to cost, the group states, “The cost of a case can range from tens of thousands to the hundreds of thousands of dollars…Currently, LEAs negotiate how disciplinary appeals are changed and funded. However, this measure proposes that the LEA should fund the entirety of the cost.”
- Related Legislation. AB 472 (Wicks) requires school districts and community colleges to pay a classified employee upon returning to service for the period of an involuntary leave of absence after the proceedings are found in favor of the employee. AB 472 is pending in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
Analysis Prepared by: Natasha Collins / APPR. / (916) 319-2081
Date of Hearing: August 16, 2023
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Chris Holden, Chair
SBPCA Bill Id:SB 433
Author:(Cortese) – As Amended Ver:June 29, 2023
Policy Committee: | Public Employment and Retirement | Vote: | 5 - 1 |
Higher Education | 8 - 3 | ||
|
|
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: Yes Reimbursable: Yes
SUMMARY:
This bill requires an impartial third-party hearing officer to determine, on appeal, if a permanent classified school or community college district (district) employee at a non-merit district should be subject to disciplinary action.
Specifically, this bill requires, if a permanent classified employee of a district requests a hearing on the charges lodged against the employee, the third-party hearing officer to be paid for by the district and jointly selected by the district and the employee or their employee organization from a list of seven arbitrators obtained by the parties from the California State Mediation and Conciliation Service, unless the employee organization and the district agree otherwise. The bill extends these requirements to classified employees of any joint powers authorities that include a district, and to classified employees of a county superintendent of schools.
FISCAL EFFECT:
Ongoing Proposition 98 General Fund costs, of an unknown, but potentially significant amount, to nonmerit districts to pay for a third-party hearing officer to settle disciplinary appeal hearings. Annual costs would depend on the number and scope of such proceedings each year. The costs associated with a single hearing can exceed $10,000 for a complicated matter.
The state would need to reimburse these costs to school districts and community college districts, if the Commission on State Mandates determines the bill’s requirements to be a reimbursable state mandate.
COMMENTS:
- Purpose. According to a the author:
Under current law for nonmerit districts and community colleges, the default is that a governing board conducts a hearing if an employee exercises their right to challenge disciplinary action taken against the employee by the district. This deprives many classified employees of a fair appeal because governing boards typically vote to take the initial disciplinary action. It is unfair for the same board that voted to discipline an employee to also be the appellate body. This is also contrary to how discipline appeals for most other public employees, including teachers, are determined. While unions representing classified employees can bargain to have a third-party hearing officer, they do not benefit from this being the default as many other public employees do...
SB 433 would require an impartial third-party hearing officer to determine on appeal if a permanent classified employee in a non-merit district should be subject to disciplinary action.
- Background. A relatively small number of districts are considered “merit” system districts. Merit system districts operate similarly to state and federal governments’ civil service systems. The vast majority districts have not adopted a merit system, and are known as “nonmerit” districts. Nonmerit districts adhere to different rules than merit system districts. With regard to employee discipline, merit districts use personnel commissions while nonmerit districts adhere to certain procedures set forth in law. Under current law, nonmerit districts may subject a classified employee to disciplinary action, but must provide certain notifications and other due process rights. Current law allows districts to negotiate with an employee organization the terms of a classified employee’s appeal of a disciplinary action to a third party, but does not require it.
This bill explicitly allows a classified employee to appeal a disciplinary action to a third party. According to this bill’s proponents, although this provision could be negotiated under current law, they believe it should be the standard for better parity with other public employee appeal processes. According to proponents of this bill, absent collective bargaining, districts typically appeal cases back to the district’s governing board. The proponents of this bill do not believe this appeal process to be impartial.
- Parity. This bill does not provide parity with certificated school staff with regard to who covers the costs of a disciplinary appeal. For certificated staff, if the Commission on Professional Competence (CPC) determines the employee should be dismissed or suspended, the governing board of the school district and the state General Fund are to share equally the expenses of the hearing. If the CPC determines the employee should not be dismissed or suspended, the governing board of the school district is to pay the expenses of the hearing. This bill instead requires a district to cover the full cost for classified staff appeals in any case.
- Opposition. This bill is opposed by a coalition of school groups, including the CA School Boards Association, the Associations of CA School Administrators, CA Association of School Business Officials, and the Small School Districts Association. With regard to cost, the group states, “The cost of a case can range from tens of thousands to the hundreds of thousands of dollars…Currently, LEAs negotiate how disciplinary appeals are changed and funded. However, this measure proposes that the LEA should fund the entirety of the cost.”
- Related Legislation. AB 472 (Wicks) requires school districts and community colleges to pay a classified employee upon returning to service for the period of an involuntary leave of absence after the proceedings are found in favor of the employee. AB 472 is pending in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
Analysis Prepared by: Natasha Collins / APPR. / (916) 319-2081
Date of Hearing: August 16, 2023
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Chris Holden, Chair
SBPCA Bill Id:SB 433
Author:(Cortese) – As Amended Ver:June 29, 2023
Policy Committee: | Public Employment and Retirement | Vote: | 5 - 1 |
Higher Education | 8 - 3 | ||
|
|
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: Yes Reimbursable: Yes
SUMMARY:
This bill requires an impartial third-party hearing officer to determine, on appeal, if a permanent classified school or community college district (district) employee at a non-merit district should be subject to disciplinary action.
Specifically, this bill requires, if a permanent classified employee of a district requests a hearing on the charges lodged against the employee, the third-party hearing officer to be paid for by the district and jointly selected by the district and the employee or their employee organization from a list of seven arbitrators obtained by the parties from the California State Mediation and Conciliation Service, unless the employee organization and the district agree otherwise. The bill extends these requirements to classified employees of any joint powers authorities that include a district, and to classified employees of a county superintendent of schools.
FISCAL EFFECT:
Ongoing Proposition 98 General Fund costs, of an unknown, but potentially significant amount, to nonmerit districts to pay for a third-party hearing officer to settle disciplinary appeal hearings. Annual costs would depend on the number and scope of such proceedings each year. The costs associated with a single hearing can exceed $10,000 for a complicated matter.
The state would need to reimburse these costs to school districts and community college districts, if the Commission on State Mandates determines the bill’s requirements to be a reimbursable state mandate.
COMMENTS:
- Purpose. According to a the author:
Under current law for nonmerit districts and community colleges, the default is that a governing board conducts a hearing if an employee exercises their right to challenge disciplinary action taken against the employee by the district. This deprives many classified employees of a fair appeal because governing boards typically vote to take the initial disciplinary action. It is unfair for the same board that voted to discipline an employee to also be the appellate body. This is also contrary to how discipline appeals for most other public employees, including teachers, are determined. While unions representing classified employees can bargain to have a third-party hearing officer, they do not benefit from this being the default as many other public employees do...
SB 433 would require an impartial third-party hearing officer to determine on appeal if a permanent classified employee in a non-merit district should be subject to disciplinary action.
- Background. A relatively small number of districts are considered “merit” system districts. Merit system districts operate similarly to state and federal governments’ civil service systems. The vast majority districts have not adopted a merit system, and are known as “nonmerit” districts. Nonmerit districts adhere to different rules than merit system districts. With regard to employee discipline, merit districts use personnel commissions while nonmerit districts adhere to certain procedures set forth in law. Under current law, nonmerit districts may subject a classified employee to disciplinary action, but must provide certain notifications and other due process rights. Current law allows districts to negotiate with an employee organization the terms of a classified employee’s appeal of a disciplinary action to a third party, but does not require it.
This bill explicitly allows a classified employee to appeal a disciplinary action to a third party. According to this bill’s proponents, although this provision could be negotiated under current law, they believe it should be the standard for better parity with other public employee appeal processes. According to proponents of this bill, absent collective bargaining, districts typically appeal cases back to the district’s governing board. The proponents of this bill do not believe this appeal process to be impartial.
- Parity. This bill does not provide parity with certificated school staff with regard to who covers the costs of a disciplinary appeal. For certificated staff, districts negotiate how these costs will be covered while this bill requires districts to cover the full cost for classified staff appeals.
- Opposition. This bill is opposed by a coalition of school groups, including the CA School Boards Association, the Associations of CA School Administrators, CA Association of School Business Officials, and the Small School Districts Association. With regard to cost, the group states, “The cost of a case can range from tens of thousands to the hundreds of thousands of dollars…Currently, LEAs negotiate how disciplinary appeals are changed and funded. However, this measure proposes that the LEA should fund the entirety of the cost.”
- Related Legislation. AB 472 (Wicks) requires school districts and community colleges to pay a classified employee upon returning to service for the period of an involuntary leave of absence after the proceedings are found in favor of the employee. AB 472 is pending in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
Analysis Prepared by: Natasha Collins / APPR. / (916) 319-2081
Date of Hearing: June 27, 2023
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION
Mike Fong, Chair
SBPCA Bill Id:SB 433
Author:(Cortese) – As Amended Ver:May 18, 2023
SENATE VOTE: 28-11
SUBJECT: Classified school and community college employees: disciplinary hearings: appeals: impartial third-party hearing officers
SUMMARY: Establishes an appeal process for classified staff employed by either a K-12 or community college district who have received notice of a disciplinary action from their employer, the governing board of the K-12 or community college district. Specifically, this bill:
K-12 section of the measure.
- Establishes an appeal process for classified employees (who are employed by non-merit districts) in the event a K-12 school district determines the conduct of an employee is subject to a disciplinary action. The appeal process will be conducted by an impartial third-party officer paid by the school district and selected by the district and the employee or the employee organization and the district. Requires a classified employee who wishes to exercise this appeal authority to notify the governing board of the K-12 district within thirty days of receiving the initial disciplinary decision.
- Permits the governing board of a K-12 district and the classified employee union to include in their collective bargaining agreement an alternative method for appealing a disciplinary action for classified staff.
- Exempts for purposes of the appeal process, classified employees who are peace officers as defined.
- Authorizes the determination made by the third-party hearing officer reviewing the appeal, as to whether the disciplinary action is warranted or not, to be subject to judicial review pursuant to Section 1286.2 (a) of the Civil Procedure Code.
- Stipulates (1) of this analysis applies to classified employees who are employed by an entity, including a regional occupational center or program, created or established by one or more school districts that exercise any joint power as defined.
- Clarifies that disciplinary action does not include verbal or written reprimands or verbal or written warnings.
- Requires a governing board of a school district or an impartial third party officer to delegate its authority to a judge to determine whether sufficient cause exists for a disciplinary action against a classified employee involving allegations of egregious misconduct and conduct involving a minor. The judge’s ruling will be binding by all parties.
- Deletes outdated language regarding when the provision of the code section will apply to K-12 districts’ collective bargaining agreements with classified staff.
- Authorizes those who are employed by a county superintendent of schools in a position not requiring a certification qualification and whose salary is paid from the county school service fund to be eligible for an appeal of a disciplinary action.
- Makes conforming and technical changes.
- Authorizes that if the Commission on State Mandates determines this act contains a cost mandated by the state, the state is required to reimburse local agencies and districts for those identified costs in accordance with Part 7 of Division 4 of Title 3 of the Government Code.
Community college section of the measure.
- Establishes an appeal process for classified employees (who are employed by non-merit districts) in the event the governing board of the community college district determines the conduct of the classified employee is subject to a disciplinary action. The appeal process will be conducted by an impartial third-party officer paid by the community college district and selected by the community college district and the employee, or the employee organization and the community college district. Requires a classified employee who wishes to exercise this appeal authority to notify the governing board of the community college within thirty days of receiving the initial disciplinary decision.
- Permits the governing board of the community college district and the classified employee union to include in their collective bargaining agreement an alternative method for appealing disciplinary action for classified staff.
- Exempts for purposes of the appeal process, classified employees who are peace officers as defined.
- Clarifies that (1) of this analysis also applies to classified employees who are employed by an entity created or established by one or more community college districts that exercise joint power, as defined.
- Permits a community college district to stop paying the permanent classified employee before a decision is rendered if 30 days have passed since the employee requested an appeal hearing.
- Authorizes the determination made by the third-party hearing officer reviewing the appeal, as to whether the disciplinary action is warranted or not, to be subject to judicial review pursuant to Section 1286.2 (a) of the Civil Procedure Code.
- Clarifies that disciplinary action does not include verbal or written reprimands or verbal or written warnings.
- Makes clarifying and conforming changes.
- Authorizes that if the Commission on State Mandates determines this act contains a cost mandated by the state, the state is required to reimburse local agencies and districts for those identified costs in accordance with Part 7 of Division 4 of Title 3 of the Government Code.
EXISTING LAW: Pertaining to K-12 School Districts.
- Establishes the procedures by which a K-12 school district may provide a disciplinary action for a classified employee. Specifically stipulates, a school district must adopt rules and procedures for disciplinary proceedings that include providing the employee a written notification of the specific charges against the employee, information on the employee’s right to a hearing, and how the employee can request a hearing including a requirement that the district must be notified at least five days after the service of notice to the employee. The burden of proof will remain with the governing board of the school district. Authorizes the governing board of the school district or a third-party impartial hearing officer to determine whether there is sufficient cause for the disciplinary action. If the school district elects to use an impartial hearing officer, the governing board of the school district will retain the ability to review the determination, as defined. Prohibits the suspension, demotion, or dismissal of an employee, who has requested a hearing, unless the governing board of the K-12 district or the third-party impartial hearing officer have determined the employee engaged in either criminal misconduct, misconduct that presents a risk of harm to pupils, staff, or property, or committed habitual violations of the district’s policies or regulations. For specific disciplinary actions involving allegations of egregious misconduct and conduct involving a minor, the governing board of a district will delegate its authority to a judge and the judge’s rule in the disciplinary matter will be binding for all parties. Clarifies the above appeal procedures only apply to non-merit K-12 districts (Education Code (EDC) Section 45113).
- Establishes the procedures and disciplinary proceedings for classified staff in non-merit community college districts. Specifies, the governing board of a community college district will adopt procedures for disciplinary proceedings that contain a provision for informing the employee by written notice of the specific charges, the employee’s right to a hearing, and the timeframe an employee has to request a hearing (must be at a minimum five days after the notice is received by the employee of the disciplinary action). Permits the governing board of a community college district to delegate authority as to whether there is sufficient cause for disciplinary action to an impartial third-party hearing officer (pursuant to the classified employee’s collective bargaining agreement), but the governing board will retain authority to review the determination under specific circumstances, as defined. Prohibits the suspension, demotion, or dismissal of an employee, who has requested a hearing, unless the governing board of the community college district or the third-party impartial hearing officer have determined the employee engaged in either criminal misconduct, misconduct that presents a risk of harm to pupils, staff, or property, or committed habitual violations of the district’s policies or regulations. Stipulates if a hearing is conducted by a third-party hearing officer the district will stop paying the employee after 30 calendar days from the date the hearing is requested. Clarifies the above appeal procedures only apply to non-merit community college districts (EDC Section 88013).
- Establishes the California Community Colleges (CCC) under the administration of the Board of Governors of the CCC, as one of the segments of public postsecondary education in this state. The CCC shall be comprised of community college districts (EDC Section 70900).
- Establishes that CCC districts are under the control of a board of trustees, known as the governing board, who has the authority to establish, maintain, operate, and govern one or more community colleges, within its district as specified (EDC Section 70902).
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Committee on Appropriations, by requiring a neutral third-party to settle disciplinary appeal hearings for non-merit districts, this bill could result in unknown, but potentially significant Proposition 98 General Fund costs to school and community college districts. A precise amount would depend on the number and scope of such proceedings each year. The costs associated with a single hearing can potentially exceed $10,000 for a more complicated matter, depending on the duration and the extent of the legal preparation involved. Additionally, the bill provides that the third-party hearing officer shall be paid by the school district.
COMMENTS: Double referral. This bill passed out of the Assembly Public Employment and Retirement Committee on June 14, 2023, with a vote count of 5-1. The Committee heard the measure as it pertained to matters that were germane to its jurisdiction.
Author’s intent. As explained by the author, “classified employees are the lifeblood of a school — these employees drive our school buses, prepare and serve meals to children, and carry out essential office functions. They deserve the same due process rights as teachers. SB 433 promotes a more fair and equitable discipline system. Establishing impartial, third-party officers to arbitrate over disciplinary actions will protect the rights and liberties of the classified school staff.”
Purpose of the measure. As expressed by the co-sponsors of the bill the California School Employees Association and the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, SB 433 (Cortese) would establish appeal protocols by which a classified employee of a non-merit K-12 or community college district would be able to appeal a disciplinary action to an impartial third-party hearing officer, who would render a decision as to whether a classified employee should receive the disciplinary action.
Under current law, a classified employee of a K-12 or community college district who receives a disciplinary action notification is able to “appeal” the disciplinary action to either the governing board or to an impartial third-party officer. The option for an impartial third-party officer is only available if collectively bargained between the governing board of the district and the classified employee union. Therefore, it is entirely plausible that there are districts (K-12 and community colleges) where classified employees are notified of a pending disciplinary action and can only appeal to the governing board, which has already determined there was sufficient evidence to warrant the disciplinary action against the employee in the first place. To preserve due process and the right to an impartial decision-maker, SB 433 (Cortese) would require districts to either have procedures in place where a classified employee can appeal their disciplinary action to an impartial third-party hearing officer or a procedure that is collectively bargained and agreed to by both the governing board of the district and the classified employee organization.
Skelly v. State Personnel Board (1975) 15 Cal.3d 194. In 1975 the California Supreme Court ruled that part of the due process afforded to public employees must include specified procedures and safeguards prior to a disciplinary action. The ruling determined all public employees, including classified staff at K-12 and community college districts, are entitled to the following:
- Notice of the proposed disciplinary action;
- A statement of the reasons for the proposed action;
- A copy of the charges and materials upon which the proposed action is based; and,
- The right to respond either orally or in writing to the authority initially imposing the discipline.
This procedure created the function of a “Skelly” officer whose role is to provide an objective review of the proposed discipline and the employee’s response. The officer will then make a judgment or recommendation as to whether the disciplinary action should be sustained, modified, or rejected. The Skelly officer can be someone employed by the K-12 or community college district but must be impartial or have no involvement in the discipline of the matter. For example, the Skelly officer would need to be someone from another department with no history of conflict with the employee, and not involved in the discipline or involving the employee.
After the Skelly hearing, a public employee may have the right to appeal. In the case of a K-12 and community college classified employees appeal their disciplinary action either to the governing board of the district or to an impartial third-party officer depending upon the district’s classified employee collective bargaining agreement.
Community college classified staff versus faculty appeal procedures. Education Code section 87672 through 87683 provides the procedures by which a community college district must follow to penalize or dismiss full-time faculty. The procedure includes a notification of the disciplinary decision along with the reason for the disciplinary decision and the right for the faculty member to appeal. Unlike classified staff, faculty have the right to have an appeal hearing overseen by an arbitrator. The Education Code further explains since the governing board of the community college district is not the decision maker in the appeal hearing, they, along with the employee, can appeal the decision of the arbitrator to the judicial system for review. The below chart highlights the differences between faculty and classified staff disciplinary procedures.
Classified Staff | Full-time Faculty |
Skelly Process and Hearing | Skelly Process and Hearing |
Disciplinary Action Notification | Disciplinary Action Notification |
A minimum of five days to appeal subject to collective bargaining | Thirty days to appeal, as delineated in the Education Code. |
The appeal hearing is either before the Governing Board of the community college district or before a third-party impartial hearing officer. In the event the governing board makes the determination of the appeal hearing, the decision is final no further appeals are granted. In the event the third-party impartial hearing officer makes the determination in the appeal hearing, the governing board has a right to review the determination and vacate the decision under certain circumstances. In either case, the classified employee has exhausted all rights to appeal the disciplinary action. | The appeal hearing is either before an arbitrator or if the employee and the district agree OR After thirty days if the district and the employee cannot agree on an arbitrator, the appeal hearing is held before an administrative law judge. |
If either the employee or the governing board disagrees with the outcome of the “appeal hearing” either party can request a second appeal review conducted by the court. |
Source: Education Code Section 87672 through 87683 and Education Code Section 88013.
SB 433 (Cortese) establishes an appeal process by which a neutral third-party hearing officer would be the decision maker, not the governing board of the community college districts, and provides a step towards parity between classified staff and faculty employed by the same district.
Personnel Commissions and the merit system. A personnel commission is an independent board separate from the governing board of a district and the leadership of a college within a district. The purpose of the personnel commission is to maintain a merit system for classified employees of the district and campuses within the district and to oversee the work of the executive director and personnel commission staff. The personnel commission’s main directive is to ensure fair and objective treatment of all applicants and employees.
Established in Education Code Section 88060 through 88139, a personnel commission is comprised of three to five citizens who are appointed into staggering terms to oversee the work of the personnel commission staff. In some K-12 and community college districts, the personnel commission staff are the human resources staff of either the district or campus within the district. However, that is not always the case and for many the personnel commission staff are independent positions separate from the district. If the classified staff elects to have a merit system, the personnel commission is established to oversee and enforce the merit system.
A merit system is a set of rules and procedures to ensure the selection, promotion, retention, and discipline of classified staff is conducted in a manner without favoritism or prejudice. As part of its role, the personnel commission is tasked with classifying and reclassifying positions and serves as the appeal hearing officer for disciplinary actions taken against classified staff. As of 2021, of the 73 community college districts, only five community college districts have a merit system and therefore have a personnel commission. SB 433 (Coretese) would provide comparable circumstances between classified staff in merit and non-merit districts by establishing an appeal process before an impartial thirty-party officer for non-merit classified staff akin to their merit counterparts who are able to appeal disciplinary actions to the personnel commission.
Arguments in support. As proponents of the measure, the California Federation of Teachers, illustrates the need for the measure by highlighting that, “Current law provides discipline appeal hearings for classified school employees to be decided by the same group of individuals who initially determined their discipline. This is contrast to nearly all other appeal processes for other public sector employees including teachers where a separate entity would review the disciplinary case. Consequently, the there is no true appeal process given the composition of the appealing body is likely the same as the initial adjudicator. SB 433 would require an impartial third-party hearing officer to determine on appeal if a permanent classified employee in a non-merit district should be subject to disciplinary action.”
Additional, points for consideration are highlighted by the California School Employees Association stating that, “the opposition is incorrectly arguing SB 433 would take away a district’s ability to ‘render personnel decisions’ and that the bill does not define ‘disciplinary action’. These contentions ignore the amendments taken in the Senate Appropriations Committee:
1. Clarifying that SB 433 only applies to appeal hearings and not initial disciplinary decisions.
2. Specifying that, for the purpose of this bill, discipline does not include verbal or written reprimands or verbal or written warnings.”
Arguments in opposition. The Association of California Community College Administrators raises the following concerns regarding the provision within SB 433 (Cortese), “ACCCA holds steadfast to the principle that local control to fundamental in establishing and operating sound programs for students and creating an infrastructure that supports all community college employees. As currently written, SB 433 would remove the authority of a community college district (CCD) to make the ultimate decision on whether to take significant disciplinary action, such as demotion, suspension, or dismissal, against a classified staff person and the ability of the CCD to reject the decision of the third-party hearing officer. The bill would also prove costly to districts, as they would be financially responsible for paying for the third-party official.”
Additional opposition from the California School Boards Association highlights concerns from K-12 districts or local education agencies (LEAs), “currently, LEAs negotiate how disciplinary appeals are handled and funded. However, this measure proposes that the LEA shoulder the entirety of the cost. Additionally, it mandates that the third-party hearing officer be selected jointly by the LEA and employee representative. This will further add to the delay in resolving sensitive personnel matters, as it could lead to many otherwise legitimate hearing officers being excluded because the LEA and employee’s representatives are unable to agree on a hearing officer. This would be further exacerbated in small LEAs in rural areas, where there may only be one or two hearing officers available. Deferring the determination of the disciplinary action against an employee contingent upon the accessibility to an ‘impartial third-party hearing officer’ would also result in delayed decisions due to increased caseloads and delays in a hearing officer’s ability to render a decision in a timely matter. Finally, requiring a LEA to schedule, fund, and wait for a hearing before an ‘impartial third-party hearing officer’ would further delay necessary and time-sensitive disciplinary actions against an employee.”
The Assembly Committee on Education’s Committee comments. According to comments provided bythe Assembly Education Committee, this bill creates near parity for K-12 classified employees with regard to the dismissal hearing process that currently exists for K-12 certificated employees, however, it does not provide parity in a few situations. First, K-12 certificated employees have the ability to appeal suspension and dismissal decisions, while this bill allows K-12 classified employees to appeal more than suspension and dismissal decisions. This bill would allow K-12 classified employees to request an appeal hearing for reassignment decisions and demotions. The Committee should consider amending the bill to limit the appeal hearings only to suspension and dismissal decisions.
Second, the cost of K-12 certificated employee dismissal appeal hearings are shared by the school district and the state when a K-12 certificated employee is dismissed. The Committee should consider amending the bill to reflect the same cost-sharing that exists in the K-12 certificated employee dismissal hearing process outlined in Education Code 44944 (f).
Committee comments. As enumerated above, SB 433 (Cortese) provides a step towards parity for classified staff and faculty at community colleges by ensuring classified staff have a neutral third-party officer for their appeal hearings; however, the measure does not provide equality under the law for appeals for disciplinary actions of classified staff and faculty. One could surmise the reason for the secondary appeal to the court system is to provide the governing board of the community college a right to “appeal” the decision of the arbitrator, thereby preserving a measure of local control over the decision for disciplining a faculty member.
SB 433 (Cortese) aims to remove implicit biases from the appeal process and ensure classified staff has access to a fair and impartial appeal process. However, SB 433 (Cortese) still enables local control by permitting alternative pathways for appeal that are collectively bargained between the governing board of the community college district and the employee organization.
Furthermore, SB 433 (Cortese) provides an opportunity for the third-party hearing officers’ decision to be subject to judicial review, but it is not clear who can submit the case for a review nor whether the review is considered independent of the arbitrator’s decision.
Finally, the measure does not define who can be the impartial third-party hearing office. Without defining who the impartial third-party hearing office is, it is possible community college districts could adopt a definition that aligns with the person who can be a Skelly officer; thereby circumventing the intention of the bill for the third-party hearing officer to be an arbitrator.
To alleviate the above concerns, the Committee has suggested and the author has accepted the following amendments to SB 433 (Cortese):
Amend Section 45113, subdivision (g), subparagraph (4) to read to clarify the definitions of disciplinary action and who the hearing officer is when there is a disciplinary appeal:
(4) For purposes of this subdivision, “disciplinary action” does not include verbal or written reprimands or verbal or written warnings. (4)For purposes of this section, the following definitions apply:
(A) “Disciplinary action” means dismissals and suspensions of staff and demotions of nonsupervisory staff and does not include reprimands or warnings whether verbal or written.
(B) “Hearing officer” means an arbitrator selected by striking from a list of seven arbitrators to be obtained by parties from the California State Mediation and Conciliation Service, unless the parties agree upon another method of selecting a hearing officer..
Amend Section 88013, subdivision (b) to read as follows to clarify the governing board’s decision of the classified employee’s disciplinary action is not conclusive:
(b) An employee designated as a permanent employee shall be subject to disciplinary action only for cause as prescribed by rule or regulation of the governing board, but the governing board’s determination of the sufficiency of the cause for disciplinary action shall be conclusive, except as set forth elsewhere in this section.
Amend Section 88013, subdivision (c) to clarify the employee has 30 days from the date of the notification of the disciplinary action to appeal.
(c) The governing board shall adopt rules of procedure for disciplinary proceedings that shall contain a provision for informing the employee by written notice of the specific charges against the employee, a statement of the employee’s right to a hearing on those charges, and a notification of the thirty days the time within which the hearing may be requested which shall be not less than five days after service of the notice to the employee, and a card or paper, the signing and filing of which shall constitute a demand for hearing, and a denial of all charges. The burden of proof shall remain with the governing board, and any rule or regulation to the contrary shall be void.
Deletes Section 88013, subdivision (e) and adds the following language to: (1) clarify that the “appeal hearing” requested by the classified employee is to be conducted by an impartial third-party hearing officer as determined by the collective bargaining agreement between the community college district and the classified employee organization, (2) clarifies the change in the disciplinary proceedings is to be adopted into future collective bargaining agreements between the classified employee organization and the CCC district, and provides a definition of what constitutes a disciplinary action and the hearing officer.
(e) (1) If an employee, excluding a peace officer as defined in Section 830.32 of the Penal Code, requests a hearing pursuant to subdivision (c), an impartial third-party hearing officer paid by the community college district and jointly selected by the district and the employee or their employee organization, as defined in subdivision (d) of Section 3540.1 of the Government Code, shall preside over the hearing and provide a determination as to the outcome of the disciplinary action.
(2) The impartial third-party hearing officer’s determination shall be subject to judicial review, on petition of either the governing board or the employee, pursuant to the standards of subdivision (a) of Section 1286.2 of the Code of Civil Procedure and in the same manner as a decision made by an administrative law judge under Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 11500) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code. The court, on review, shall exercise its independent judgment on the evidence. The proceeding shall be set for hearing at the earliest possible date and shall take precedence over all other cases, except older matters of the same character and matters to which special precedence is given by law.
(3) This subdivision shall also apply to those classified employees that are employed by any entity created or established by one or more community college districts pursuant to statute, exercising any joint power pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 6500) of Chapter 5 of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code, or as otherwise conferred by law upon community college districts.
(4) To the extent that this subdivision conflicts with a provision of a collective bargaining agreement entered into by a public school employer and an exclusive bargaining representative before January 1, 2024, pursuant to Chapter 10.7 (commencing with Section 3540) of Division 4 of Title 1 of the Government Code, this subdivision shall not apply to the community college district until the expiration or renewal of that collective bargaining agreement.
(5) For purposes of this section, the following definitions apply:
(A) “Disciplinary action” does not include verbal or written reprimands or verbal or written warnings.
(B) “Hearing officer” means an arbitrator selected by striking from a list of seven arbitrators to be obtained by the parties from the California State Mediation and Conciliation Service, unless the parties agree upon another method of selecting a hearing officer.
Deletes from Section 88013, subdivision (f), subparagraph (1) references for the third-party hearing officer to make the decision after the Skelly review process whether there was conclusive evidence to suspend or dismiss the employee based on the preponderance of evidence of an egregious offense.
(f) (1) Except as specified in paragraph (2), a permanent employee who timely requests a hearing on charges against the employee shall not be suspended without pay, suspended with a reduction in pay, demoted with a reduction in pay, or dismissed before a decision is rendered after the hearing unless the governing board, or an impartial third-party hearing officer provided pursuant to the terms of an agreement with an employee organization under Chapter 10.7 (commencing with Section 3540) of Division 4 of Title 1 of the Government Code, finds that at the time discipline was imposed at the conclusion of the review process specified in Skelly v. State Personnel Bd. (1975) 15 Cal.3d 194, the employer demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the employee engaged in criminal misconduct, misconduct that presents a risk of harm to students, staff, or property, or committed habitual violations of the district’s policies or regulations.
Deletes Section 88013, subdivision (g) as the language has been added to subdivision (e).
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
AFSCME
California Federation of Teachers
California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO
California School Employees Association
California Teachers Association
Oppose
Association of California Community College Administrators
California School Boards Association
Kern County Superintendent of Schools Office
Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC)
Analysis Prepared by: Ellen Cesaretti-Monroy / HIGHER ED. / (916) 319-3960
Date of Hearing: June 14, 2023
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT AND RETIREMENT
Tina S. McKinnor, Chair
SBPCA Bill Id:SB 433
Author:(Cortese) – As Amended Ver:May 18, 2023
SENATE VOTE: 28-11
SUBJECT: Classified school and community college employees: disciplinary hearings: appeals: impartial third-party hearing officers
SUMMARY: Requires an impartial hearing officer to determine, on appeal, if a classified school district or community college district (hereinafter, both referred to as “district”) employee should be subject to disciplinary action, among other provisions. Specifically, this bill:
- Is also referred to the Assembly Committee on Higher Education. Therefore, this analysis only discusses those matters that are germane to the jurisdiction of this committee.
- Authorizes a classified employee, excluding specified peace officers, who is disciplined, as provided, to appeal that disciplinary action to an impartial third-party hearing officer paid by the school district and jointly selected by the district and the employee or their employee organization, unless the employee organization and district have entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) reached pursuant to the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA) providing for an alternative method to determine cause, as provided.
In addition, if an employee exercises this appeal right, they must notify the governing board, in writing, within 30 days of receiving the initial disciplinary decision.
- Requires the impartial third-party hearing officer’s determination to be subject to judicial review pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure, as specified, which generally provides that the court must vacate an arbitration award procured by corruption, fraud, undue means, misconduct that substantially prejudiced the rights of the party, or other specified conduct of the arbitrator.[1]
- Applies these provisions to community college classified employees whom are employed by any entity, including a regional occupational center or program, created by one or more districts, exercising any joint powers authority, regional occupational center or program, or as otherwise conferred by law upon the district.
- Provides that “disciplinary action” does not include verbal or written reprimands or written warnings.
- As applied to K-12 districts, adds an impartial third-party hearing officer whom also is required to delegate its authority to a judge to determine whether sufficient cause exists for disciplinary action against a classified employee involving allegations of egregious misconduct, and a minor.
- Removes conflict provisions relating to a MOU and existing law that were conditioned on an MOU entered into between the district and an exclusive bargaining representative prior to January 1, 2020.
- Makes conforming changes for these purposes.
- Includes pro forma provisions relating to reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for costs, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that these provisions contain costs mandated by the state.
EXISTING LAW:
- Requires that each person employed by a county superintendent of schools in a position not requiring certification qualifications and whose salary is paid from the county school service fund to be employed in accordance with rules and regulations governing disciplinary proceedings that apply to classified employees of a school district or community college district.[2]
- Authorizes school and community college district classified employees to elect a merit (i.e., civil service) system for the district whereby the district’s board establishes a personnel commission and personnel director to administer personnel rules established in statute.[3]
- Establishes rules and regulations governing all school and community college district classified personnel, including those in nonmerit districts. Several key provisions related to the disciplinary process for classified employees do the following:[4]
- Require district boards to prescribe written rules and regulations governing classified personnel management that must be printed and made available to classified service employees whom the district designates as permanent after serving a probationary period not to exceed the longer of six months or 130 days of paid service, or one-year for peace officer employees, as specified.
- Authorize a district to discipline a permanent classified employee only for cause as prescribed by board rule or regulation and provide that the board’s determination of sufficiency of the cause for disciplinary action is conclusive.
- Require a district governing board to adopt rules of procedure for disciplinary proceedings that provide due process rights to employees, as specified; places the evidentiary burden of proof on the board; and, voids any contrary rule or regulation.
- Prohibit a district from imposing disciplinary action for any cause that arose prior to the employee attaining permanent status, or for any cause that arose more than two years before the district filed the notice of cause, unless the employee concealed or failed to disclose the cause when the employee reasonably should have disclosed the facts to the district.
- Clarify that a governing board continues to have authority to delegate disciplinary determinations to an impartial third party hearing officer, as specified, pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement, but must retain its authority to review the hearing officer’s determination pursuant to Section 1286.2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
- Require a governing board to delegate cases involving disciplinary action against an employee for allegations of egregious conduct involving a minor, to an administrative law judge, as specified, and make the judge’s ruling binding on all parties.
- Prohibit the governing board, if the employee timely requests a hearing, from suspending the employee without pay or with reduced pay or from dismissing the employee before the board renders its decision at a hearing on the charges; however, the governing board may do so if an impartial third-party hearing officer finds at a preliminary hearing that the district demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the employee engaged in criminal or risky misconduct, as specified. Further, if the board uses an impartial third-party hearing officer, as specified, to conduct the hearing on the charges, the board may suspend the employee’s pay, before the determination on the charges, 30 days after the employee requested the hearing.
- Provide that provisions involving classified employee discipline only apply to districts that have not incorporated the merit system.
- Requires a notice of disciplinary action to contain a statement in ordinary and concise language of the specific acts and omissions upon which the disciplinary action is based; a statement of the cause of the action to be taken; and, if there is a claim that an employee has violated a rule or regulation of the employer, the notice shall set forth the rule or regulation. The provision also describes when a notice is insufficient and the consequences when a notice violates the provision’s requirements.[5]
- Establishes the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA), which provides a statutory framework under California law governing employer-employee relations within the public schools (K-12) and community college system and authorizing collective bargaining between school employers and their school employees, as specified.[6]
- Establishes the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB), a quasi-judicial administrative agency charged with resolving disputes and enforcing the statutory duties and rights of public agency employers and employee organizations, but provides the City and County of Los Angeles a local alternative to PERB oversight.[7]
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, by requiring a neutral third-party to settle disciplinary appeal hearings for non-merit districts, this bill could result in unknown, but potentially significant Proposition 98 General Fund costs to school and community college districts. A precise amount would depend on the number and scope of such proceedings each year. The costs associated with a single hearing can potentially exceed $10,000 for a more complicated matter, depending on the duration and the extent of the legal preparation involved. Additionally, the bill provides that the third-party hearing officer shall be paid by the school district.
COMMENTS: According to information provided by the author, “[u]nder current law for nonmerit districts and community colleges, the default is that a governing board conducts a hearing if an employee exercises their right to challenge disciplinary action taken against the employee by the district. This deprives many classified employees of a fair appeal because governing boards typically vote to take the initial disciplinary action. It is unfair for the same board that voted to discipline an employee to also be the appellate body. This is also contrary to how discipline appeals for most other public employees, including teachers, are determined. While unions representing classified employees can bargain to have a third-party hearing officer, they do not benefit from this being the default as many other public employees do.”
In addition, “[s]chool boards are not involved in discipline appeal hearings for teachers. The Commission on Professional Competence (CPC) is tasked with overseeing disciplinary proceedings involving K-12 teachers. The [CPC] consists of three people appointed for each disciplinary case: an administrative law judge working for the State Office of Administrative Hearings, a management-appointed commissioner, and a teacher-designated commissioner. Though they have the same employer, classified employees must bargain for a disciplinary appeal hearing to be conducted by a neutral third-party hearing officer.”
For these purposes, the author states that, “[c]lassified employees are the lifeblood of a school — these employees drive our school buses, prepare and serve meals to children, and carry out essential office functions. They deserve the same due process rights as teachers. [This bill] promotes a more fair and equitable discipline system. Establishing impartial, third-party officers to arbitrate over disciplinary actions will protect the rights and liberties of classified school staff.”
- Brief History of the Establishment of Merit Systems in California Public Schools
“Merit systems,” also commonly referred to as district “civil service systems” relating to public education in California are independent of the school or community college district’s governing board where the Personnel Commission of a “merit system” district is responsible for administering the hiring and retention of classified school employees through a statutory framework pursuant to the Education Code. In California, there approximately 100 of these systems that currently exist.
Merit systems derive from the late 19th and early 20th century civil service movement that sought to curtail the “spoils” resulting from political patronage in the system whereby elected political candidates rewarded their supporters with government positions. These systems arose out of a particularly egregious school board decision to discharge over 700 classified employees in the 1930s upon the new board’s election.
This history strongly suggests that the Legislature intended the merit system framework as a means to protect classified employees from local political mistreatment at a time prior to public sector collective bargaining, and in which such systems continue to presently exist.
Generally, in the public education employment arena, districts that have not formally adopted the merit system are referred to as “nonmerit” districts. For such districts, employee disciplinary and termination matters are not addressed by a personnel commission.
- Procedural Due Process Rights of Public Employees
Generally, due process is a constitutional construction that consists of substantive (i.e., legal) and procedural (i.e., fairness [notice, hearing/opportunity to be heard]) rights afforded to individuals (and businesses).[8] In sum, due process provides rights to make legal claims and to be heard in a court of law or other competent adjudicative forum regarding those claims.
Procedural due process also applies to permanent public employees to protect their employment rights, including those relating to discipline. Here, public employees have a right to a notice of disciplinary action, a copy of the materials on which the action is based, and an opportunity for the employee to respond to those charges to an impartial reviewer prior to discipline or termination being imposed. This pre-disciplinary hearing process for public employees is commonly referred to as a “Skelly Hearing” following a seminal judicial decision that involved a public employee surnamed Skelly in which the court held that permanent public employee status is a constitutionally protected property interest and because the employee has a protected property right to their job, they cannot be deprived of it without due process.[9] Thus, a preliminary hearing must take place prior to the imposition of discipline upon, or termination of, the employee.
- Equity Solutions and Maximizing Benefits for Underserved and Marginalized Communities
Pursuant to House Resolution (HR) 39 (Gipson, 2021), to continue the Assembly’s commitment to investing in equity solutions and maximizing benefits for underserved and marginalized communities, legislative analyses of the Assembly must discuss the equity impact that a bill will, or may, have on such communities, if any.
This bill does not present a particular focus towards addressing equity in relation to maximizing benefits for underserved or marginalized communities as articulated in HR 39. However, under a broader context, information provided by the author asserts that most classified school employees are women and people of color whom are unfairly denied disciplinary appeal hearings conducted by a neutral party such as an arbitrator. However, disciplinary appeal hearings for community college faculty are conducted by arbitrators, and this bill would help to provide some parity with such faculty as well as afford classified employee with neutrality relating to disciplinary appeal hearings. (Emphasis added.)
- Comments by Supporters
The California School Employees Association (CSEA) states in part that, “[d]iscipline appeal hearings for classified school employees are currently decided by school district or community college governing boards. These boards are typically the same bodies that vote on initial disciplinary decisions. It is unfair for the same board that took the initial vote to discipline an employee to also be the appellate body. SB 433 would still allow unions and districts to negotiate alternative appeal processes in their collective bargaining agreements. [This bill] would require an impartial third-party hearing officer to determine on appeal if the employee should be subject to disciplinary action…,” and “…”is consistent with the disciplinary appeal rights provided to teachers and community college faculty.”
Both the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, and the California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO make statements regarding this bill similar to those of the CSEA.
The California Teachers Association states in part that, “[l]ike our certificated school employees, classified school employees deserve due process to ensure that they are treated fairly and that their rights are respected. Due process provides protection against arbitrary dismissal, unfair discipline, and other forms of discrimination. It also helps ensure employees are given an opportunity to respond to and defend themselves against accusations or allegations that may arise in the workplace; this is especially important to ensure that all employers provide equitable and respectful treatment to their employees. Whatever the specifics of the format for due process protection, we believe that educators must have access to a hearing of charges, evidence, and presentation of defense before an impartial, objective, “third-party” source. Due Process protects children and society against incompetent or unfit professional staff members, and protects educators against disciplinary or dismissal proceedings without just cause for arbitrary, capricious, or unsubstantiated reasons.”
- Comments by Opponents
A coalition of opponents express, among other things that, “[a]lthough recent amendments provide further clarity on what disciplinary actions fall under the provisions of this bill, it continues to apply a “one-size fits all” approach, creating a blanket requirement for most significant disciplinary matters. The cost of a case can range from tens of thousands to the hundreds of thousands of dollars, which would greatly increase the number of appeals being filed and multiply existing costs, potentially into the millions of dollars per local educational agency (LEA). Currently, LEAs negotiate how disciplinary appeals are handled and funded. However, this measure proposes that the LEA shoulder the entirety of the cost. Additionally, it mandates that the third-party hearing officer be selected jointly by the LEA and employee representative. This will further add to the delay in resolving sensitive personnel matters, as it could lead to many otherwise legitimate hearing officers being excluded because the LEA and employee’s representatives are unable to agree on a hearing officer. This would be further exacerbated in small LEAs in rural areas, where there may only be one or two hearing officers available.
“Deferring the determination of the disciplinary action against an employee contingent upon the accessibility to an “impartial third-party hearing officer” would also result in delayed decisions due to increased caseloads and delays in a hearing officer’s ability to render a decision in a timely matter. Finally, requiring a LEA to schedule, fund, and wait for a hearing before an “impartial third-party hearing officer” would further delay necessary and time-sensitive disciplinary actions against an employee. This measure removes the authority of an elected school board to make the ultimate decision on whether to take significant disciplinary action, such as the demotion, suspension, or dismissal, against a classified staff person, [and] the ability of a school board to reject the decision of the third-party hearings officer. This is contrary to the spirit of local control and removes yet another layer of local school board governance authority[,] delegates that authority to an unelected entity, [and] …would also require LEAs to fund the costs associated with obtaining a disciplinary ruling for cause from a third-party hearing officer and jointly selected by the LEA and the union.”
The Kern County Superintendent of Schools makes statements similar to those of the coalition regarding this bill.
- Prior or Related Legislation
Assembly Bill 472 (Wicks, 2023) would require school and community college districts to pay a classified employee upon returning to service for the district for the period of an involuntary leave of absence after the proceedings of a charge of a criminal offense, investigation, or job-related administrative determination are found in favor of the employee. This bill is currently pending referral in the Senate.
Chapter 913, Statutes of 2022 (Assembly Bill 2413, Carrillo) prohibits school and community college districts from suspending, demoting, or dismissing without pay a permanent, classified employee who timely requests a hearing on the charges against the employee before a decision is rendered on the matter.
Chapter 556, Statutes of 2021 (Assembly Bill 275, Medina) reduced the probationary period for classified community college employees in non-merit districts from one year to the longer of six months or 130 days of paid service.
Chapter 666, Statutes of 2021 (Assembly Bill 486, Assembly Committee on Education), the annual K-12 education policy omnibus bill, included changes under existing law regarding probationary periods for school peace officer and public safety dispatchers.
Chapter 48, Statutes of 2020 (Assembly Bill 2234, Chau) authorizes a member of a personnel commission (i.e., merit district) to declare that a conflict exists between the interests of the commission and the interests of a government board of the school district, among other provisions.
Assembly Bill 2609 (Medina, 2020) was substantially the same as Assembly Bill 275 (Medina, 2021). This bill was held by the Assembly Committee on Higher Education.
Chapter 542, Statutes of 2019 (Assembly Bill 1353, Wicks) reduced the maximum length of the probationary period for K-12 classified school employees working in non-merit based districts from one year to a period not exceeding six months or 130 days of paid service, whichever is longer.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO (Co-Sponsor)
California School Employees Association, AFL-CIO (Co-Sponsor)
California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO
California Teachers Association
Opposition
Association of California School Administrators
California Association of School Business Officials
California School Boards Association
Central Valley Education Coalition
Kern County Office of Education
Kern County Superintendent of Schools Office
Orange County Department of Education
Riverside County Office of Education
School Employers Association of California
Small School Districts Association
Analysis Prepared by: Michael Bolden / P. E. & R. / (916) 319-3957
Section 1286.2 (a) of the Code of Civil Procedure is incorporated by reference. ↑
Section 1311 of the Education (Educ.) Code. ↑
Sections 45220 et seq. of the Educ. Code relating to school districts, and Sections 88050 et seq. relating to community college districts. ↑
Sections 45113 et seq. of the Educ. Code relating to school districts, and Sections 88013 et seq. of the Educ. Code relating to community college districts. ↑
Sections 45116 of the Educ. Code relating to school districts, and Section 88016 relating to community college districts. ↑
Sections 3540 et seq. of the Government (Gov.) Code. ↑
Sections 3541 et seq. of the Gov. Code. ↑
Fifth Amendment (Due Process) and Fourteenth Amendment (Equal Protection), respectively, U.S. Const. ↑
Skelly v. State Personnel Bd. (1975) 15 Cal.3d 194, 539 P.2d 774. ↑
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478 | SB 433 |
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 433
Author: Cortese (D)
Amended: 5/18/23
Vote: 21
SENATE LABOR, PUB. EMP. & RET. COMMITTEE: 4-1, 4/12/23
AYES: Cortese, Durazo, Laird, Smallwood-Cuevas
NOES: Wilk
SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE: 4-2, 4/19/23
AYES: Newman, Cortese, McGuire, Smallwood-Cuevas
NOES: Ochoa Bogh, Glazer
NO VOTE RECORDED: Wilk
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-2, 5/18/23
AYES: Portantino, Ashby, Bradford, Wahab, Wiener
NOES: Jones, Seyarto
SUBJECT: Classified school and community college employees: disciplinary hearings: appeals: impartial third-party hearing officers
SOURCE: California School Employees Association
DIGEST:
This bill requires an impartial third-party hearing officer to determine, on appeal, if a classified school or community college (CCC) employee should be subject to disciplinary action.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
- Requires that each person employed by a county superintendent of schools in a position not requiring certification qualifications and whose salary is paid from the county school service fund to be employed in accordance with rules and regulations governing disciplinary proceedings that apply to classified employees of a K-12 or CCC districts. (ED § 1311)
- Authorizes K-12 and CCC district classified employees to elect a merit (i.e., civil service) system for their district whereby the district’s board establishes a personnel commission and personnel director to administer personnel rules established in statute. (ED §§ 45220 et seq. and §§ 88050 et seq.).
- Establishes rules and regulations governing all K-12 and CCC classified personnel including those in non-merit districts (i.e., where a district has not established a merit system and the governing board retains direct decision authority over classified personnel issues). Key provisions related to the disciplinary process for classified employees do the following:
- Require K-12 and CCC district boards to prescribe written rules and regulations governing classified personnel management that must be printed and made available to classified service employees whom the district designates as permanent after serving a probationary period not to exceed the longer of six months or 130 days of paid service, or one-year for peace officer employees, as specified.
- Provide that a K-12 or CCC district may discipline their permanent classified employees only for cause as prescribed by board rule or regulation but also provides that the board’s determination of sufficiency of the cause for disciplinary action is conclusive.
- Require a district board to adopt rules of procedure for disciplinary proceedings that provide for the employees’ due process rights, as specified; places the evidentiary burden of proof on the board; and voids any contrary rule or regulation.
- Prohibit a district from imposing disciplinary action for any cause that arose prior to the employee attaining permanent status, or for any cause that arose more than two years before the district filed the notice of cause, unless the employee concealed or failed to disclose the cause when the employee reasonably should have disclosed the facts to the district.
- Clarify that a board continues to have authority to delegate disciplinary determinations to an impartial third party hearing officer, as specified, pursuant to a bargaining agreement but must retain its authority to review the hearing officer’s determination pursuant to Civil Procedure Code § 1286.2.
- Require a board to delegate cases involving disciplinary action against an employee for allegations of egregious conduct involving a minor, to an administrative law judge, as specified, and make the judge’s ruling binding on all parties.
- Prohibit the board, if the employee timely requests a hearing, from suspending the employee without pay or with reduced pay or from dismissing the employee before the board renders its decision at a hearing on the charges. (ED § 45113 and § 88013).
- However, the board may do so if an impartial third-party hearing officer finds at a preliminary (Skelly) hearing that the district demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the employee engaged in criminal or risky misconduct, as specified.
- If the board uses an impartial third-party hearing officer, as specified, to conduct the hearing on the charges, the board may suspend the employee’s pay, before the determination on the charges, 30 days after the employee requested the hearing.
- Provide that provisions involving classified employee discipline only apply to districts that have not incorporated the merit system (i.e., have not adopted a personnel commission, as specified).
(ED §§ 45113 et seq. and §§ 88013 et seq.)
- Requires a notice of disciplinary action to contain a statement in ordinary and concise language of the specific acts and omissions upon which the disciplinary action is based; a statement of the cause of the action to be taken; and, if there is a claim that an employee has violated a rule or regulation of the employer, the notice shall set forth the rule or regulation. The provision also describes when a notice is insufficient and the consequences when a notice violates the provision’s requirements. (ED § 45116 and § 88016)
- Establishes the Education Employer-Employee Relations Act (EERA), which provides a statutory framework under California law governing employer-employee relations within the public schools (K-12) and community college system and authorizing collective bargaining between school employers and their school employees, as specified. (Government Code 3540 et seq.)
- Establishes the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB), a quasi-judicial administrative agency charged with resolving disputes and enforcing the statutory duties and rights of public agency employers and employee organizations, but provides the City and County of Los Angeles a local alternative to PERB oversight (GC §3541 et seq.).
This bill:
- Clarifies that the changes it makes to K-12 and CCC district classified employees regarding disciplinary proceedings also apply to the classified employees employed by county superintendents of schools.
- Provides that a classified employee, excluding a peace officer, may appeal discipline imposed for cause to an impartial third-party hearing officer paid by the K-12 or CCC district and jointly selected by the district and the employee or the employee union unless the district and the union have entered into an alternative agreement in an MOU.
- Clarifies that existing statute requiring K-12 and CCC districts to adopt rules and procedures for disciplinary action shall not be construed to prohibit the governing board, pursuant to a bargaining agreement with an employee union, from delegating its authority to determine whether sufficient cause exists for disciplinary action against classified employees, excluding peace officers, to an impartial third-party hearing officer. Notwithstanding any such agreement, the board shall retain authority to review the hearing officer’s determination under standards set forth in Civil Code of Procedure Section 1286.2, which specifies when an arbitrator’s determination can be overturned.
- Requires the employee, if electing to appeal discipline, to notify the district’s governing board in writing within 30 days of receiving the initial disciplinary decision.
- Subjects the impartial third party hearing officer’s determination to judicial review pursuant to Civil Procedure Code 1286.2, which specifies when an arbitrator’s award may be overturned.
- Provides that classified employees of any entity, including a regional occupational center or program, created or established by one or more school districts pursuant to statute and through the exercise of joint powers pursuant to Government Code 6500, also have the right to appeal discipline for cause to an impartial third party hearing officer as described above.
- Clarifies that disciplinary action for purposes of the employee’s right to appeal to a third party hearing officer as described above does not include verbal or written reprimands or verbal or written warnings.
Related/Prior Legislation
AB 472 (Wicks, 2023) requires school and community college districts to pay a classified employee upon returning to service for the district for the period of an involuntary leave of absence after the proceedings of a charge of a criminal offense, investigation, or job-related administrative determination are found in favor of the employee. The Assembly Rules Committee referred the bill to the Assembly Public Employment and Retirement Committee, which passed the bill, and to the Assembly Education Committee, where it is currently awaiting a hearing.
AB 2413 (Carrillo, Chapter 913, Statutes of 2022) prohibited school and community college districts from suspending, demoting, or dismissing without pay a permanent, classified employee who timely requests a hearing on the charges against the employee before a decision is rendered on the matter.
AB 275 (Medina, Chapter 556, Statutes of 2021) reduced the probation period for classified community college employees in non-merit districts from one year to the longer of 6 months or 130 days of paid service.
AB 486 (Assembly Education Committee, Chapter 666, Statutes of 2021), the annual K-12 education policy omnibus bill, included changes under ED Section 45113 regarding probation periods for school peace officer and public safety dispatchers.
AB 2609 (Medina, 2020) was substantially the same as AB 275 (Medina, 2021). The Assembly Higher Education Committee held the bill.
AB 1353 (Wick, Chapter 542, Statutes of 2019) reduced the maximum length of the probationary period for K-12 classified school employees working in non-merit based districts from one year to a period not exceeding six months or 130 days of paid service, whichever is longer.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, by requiring a neutral third-party to settle disciplinary appeal hearings for non-merit districts, this bill could result in unknown, but potentially significant Proposition 98 General Fund costs to school and community college districts. A precise amount would depend on the number and scope of such proceedings each year. The costs associated with a single hearing can potentially exceed $10,000 for a more complicated matter, depending on the duration and the extent of the legal preparation involved. Additionally, this bill provides that the third-party hearing officer shall be paid by the school district.
SUPPORT: (Verified 5/18/23)
California School Employees Association (source)
American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees
California Federation of Teachers
California Labor Federation
California State Council of Service Employees International Union
OPPOSITION: (Verified 5/18/23)
Association of California Community College Administrators
California School Boards Association
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the sponsor, “Discipline appeal hearings for classified school employees are normally decided by school district or community college governing boards. These boards are typically the same body that voted on the initial disciplinary decision. It is unfair for the same board that took the initial vote to discipline an employee to also be the appellate body.”
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: According to the California School Boards Association, “This bill would delete a school district’s authority to make the ultimate disciplinary action against a classified staff person and place it into the hands of an impartial third-party hearing officers to determine whether sufficient cause exists, unless the staff person is a licensed peace officer. It would also require school districts to fund the costs associated with obtaining a disciplinary ruling for cause from an impartial third-party hearing officer and jointly selected by the district and union.
“Fundamentally, this measure removes all authority of a duly elected school board to render personnel decision over the classified staff of the district. This is contrary to the spirit of local control and removes yet another layer of local school board governance authority and delegates that authority to an unelected entity.”
Prepared by: Glenn Miles / L., P.E. & R. / (916) 651-1556
5/23/23 13:28:17
**** END ****
SENATE COMMITTEE ON
Senator Anthony Portantino, Chair
2023 - 2024 Regular Session
SB 433 (Cortese) - Classified school and community college employees: disciplinary hearings: impartial third-party hearing officers
Version: | Policy Vote: |
Urgency: | Mandate: |
Hearing Date: | Consultant: |
Bill Summary:
This bill would require an impartial third-party hearing officer to determine, on appeal, if a classified school or community college (CCC) employee should be subject to disciplinary action.
*********** ANALYSIS ADDENDUM – SUSPENSE FILE ***********
The following information is revised to reflect amendments
adopted by the committee on May 18, 2023
Fiscal Impact:
By requiring a neutral third-party to settle disciplinary appeal hearings for non-merit districts, this bill could result in unknown, but potentially significant Proposition 98 General Fund costs to school and community college districts. A precise amount would depend on the number and scope of such proceedings each year. The costs associated with a single hearing can potentially exceed $10,000 for a more complicated matter, depending on the duration and the extent of the legal preparation involved. Additionally, the bill provides that the third-party hearing officer shall be paid by the school district.
Author Amendments:
Clarify that the bill’s requirements apply to disciplinary decisions, not initial decisions, as specified; maintain the existing appeals process for peace officers; and make other clarifying changes.
-- END --
SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Senator Anthony Portantino, Chair
2023 - 2024 Regular Session
SB 433 (Cortese) - Classified school and community college employees: disciplinary hearings: impartial third-party hearing officers
Version: March 21, 2023 | Policy Vote: L., P.E. & R. 4 - 1, ED. 4 - 2 |
Urgency: No | Mandate: Yes |
Hearing Date: May 1, 2023 | Consultant: Lenin Del Castillo |
Bill Summary:
This bill would require an impartial third-party hearing officer to determine, on appeal, if a classified school or community college (CCC) employee should be subject to disciplinary action.
Fiscal Impact:
By requiring a neutral third-party to settle disciplinary appeal hearings for non-merit districts, this bill could result in unknown, but potentially significant Proposition 98 General Fund costs to school and community college districts. A precise amount would depend on the number and scope of such proceedings each year. The costs associated with the hearings can range from $10,000 to potentially over $100,000 for a more complicated case. Additionally, the bill provides that the third-party hearing officer shall be paid by the school district. Further, the bill does not clearly define “discipline” which could lead to an increase in the number of hearings requiring a third-party hearing officer.
Background:
Existing law authorizes K-12 and CCC district classified employees to elect a merit (i.e., civil service) system for their district whereby the district’s board establishes a personnel commission and personnel director to administer personnel rules established in statute. The law establishes rules and regulations governing all K-12 and CCC classified personnel including those in non-merit districts (i.e., where a district has not established a merit system and the governing board retains direct decision authority over classified personnel issues).
Existing law requires K-12 and CCC district boards to prescribe written rules and regulations governing classified personnel management that must be printed and made available to classified service employees whom the district designates as permanent after serving a probationary period not to exceed the longer of six months or 130 days of paid service, or one-year for peace officer employees, as specified.
Existing law provides that a K-12 or CCC district may discipline their permanent classified employees only for cause as prescribed by board rule or regulation but also provides that the board’s determination of sufficiency of the cause for disciplinary action is conclusive.
Existing law requires a district board to adopt rules of procedure for disciplinary proceedings that provide for the employees’ due process rights, as specified; places the evidentiary burden of proof on the board; and voids any contrary rule or regulation. It also prohibits a district from imposing disciplinary action for any cause that arose prior to the employee attaining permanent status, or for any cause that arose more than two years before the district filed the notice of cause, unless the employee concealed or failed to disclose the cause when the employee reasonably should have disclosed the facts to the district.
Existing law provides that provisions involving classified employee discipline only apply to districts that have not incorporated the merit system (i.e., have not adopted a personnel commission, as specified).
Existing law requires a notice of disciplinary action to contain a statement in ordinary and concise language of the specific acts and omissions upon which the disciplinary action is based; a statement of the cause of the action to be taken; and, if there is a claim that an employee has violated a rule or regulation of the employer, the notice shall set forth the rule or regulation. The provision also describes when a notice is insufficient and the consequences when a notice violates the provision’s requirements.
Existing law establishes the Education Employer-Employee Relations Act (EERA), which provides a statutory framework under California law governing employer-employee relations within the public schools (K-12) and CCC system and authorizing collective bargaining between school employers and their school employees, as specified. It also establishes the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB), a quasi-judicial administrative agency charged with resolving disputes and enforcing the statutory duties and rights of public agency employers and employee organizations, but provides the City and County of Los Angeles a local alternative to PERB oversight.
Proposed Law:
This bill removes a K-12 and CCC board’s authority to prescribe by rule or regulation cause for which the board can discipline a classified employee. It requires, instead, that an impartial third-party hearing officer paid by the district and jointly selected by the district and the employee union shall determine cause for which a district may discipline a classified employee.
This bill retains the requirement that the board must make the determination of cause for discipline for any peace officer, and subjects the impartial third-party hearing officer’s determination, upon a duly served and filed petition, to judicial review which generally provide that the court shall vacate an arbitration award procured by corruption, fraud, undue means, misconduct that substantially prejudiced the rights of the party, or other specified conduct of the arbitrator.
This bill applies the requirement that an impartial third-party hearing officer, rather than the governing board, determine cause for discipline for classified employees of any joint-powers agency or regional occupational center or program, as specified. It also eliminates references to the board’s ability to delegate its power to determine whether sufficient cause exists for disciplinary action against classified employees to an impartial third-party hearing officer pursuant to an MOU with the union and makes other conforming changes.
-- END --
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Senator Josh Newman, Chair
2023 - 2024 Regular
Bill No: SB 433 Hearing Date: April 19, 2023
Author: | |||
Version: | March 21, 2023 | ||
Urgency: | No | Fiscal: | Yes |
Consultant: | Ian Johnson | ||
Subject: Classified school and community college employees: disciplinary hearings: impartial third-party hearing officers.
SUMMARY
This bill would require an impartial third-party hearing officer to determine, on appeal, if a classified school or community college (CCC) employee should be subject to disciplinary action.
BACKGROUND
Existing law:
- Requires that each person employed by a county superintendent of schools in a position not requiring certification qualifications and whose salary is paid from the county school service fund to be employed in accordance with rules and regulations governing disciplinary proceedings that apply to classified employees of a K-12 or CCC districts. (Education Code (EC) § 1311)
- Authorizes K-12 and CCC district classified employees to elect a merit (i.e., civil service) system for their district whereby the district’s board establishes a personnel commission and personnel director to administer personnel rules established in statute. (EC §§ 45220 et seq. and §§ 88050 et seq.)
- Establishes rules and regulations governing all K-12 and CCC classified personnel including those in non-merit districts (i.e., where a district has not established a merit system and the governing board retains direct decision authority over classified personnel issues). Key provisions related to the disciplinary process for classified employees do the following:
- Require K-12 and CCC district boards to prescribe written rules and regulations governing classified personnel management that must be printed and made available to classified service employees whom the district designates as permanent after serving a probationary period not to exceed the longer of six months or 130 days of paid service, or one-year for peace officer employees, as specified.
- Provide that a K-12 or CCC district may discipline their permanent classified employees only for cause as prescribed by board rule or regulation but also provides that the board’s determination of sufficiency of the cause for disciplinary action is conclusive.
- Require a district board to adopt rules of procedure for disciplinary proceedings that provide for the employees’ due process rights, as specified; places the evidentiary burden of proof on the board; and voids any contrary rule or regulation.
- Prohibit a district from imposing disciplinary action for any cause that arose prior to the employee attaining permanent status, or for any cause that arose more than two years before the district filed the notice of cause, unless the employee concealed or failed to disclose the cause when the employee reasonably should have disclosed the facts to the district.
- Clarify that a board continues to have authority to delegate disciplinary determinations to an impartial third party hearing officer, as specified, pursuant to a bargaining agreement but must retain its authority to review the hearing officer’s determination pursuant to Civil Procedure Code § 1286.2.
- Require a board to delegate cases involving disciplinary action against an employee for allegations of egregious conduct involving a minor, to an administrative law judge, as specified, and make the judge’s ruling binding on all parties.
- Prohibit the board, if the employee timely requests a hearing, from suspending the employee without pay or with reduced pay or from dismissing the employee before the board renders its decision at a hearing on the charges. (EC § 45113 and § 88013)
- However, the board may do so if an impartial third-party hearing officer finds at a preliminary (Skelly) hearing that the district demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the employee engaged in criminal or risky misconduct, as specified.
- If the board uses an impartial third-party hearing officer, as specified, to conduct the hearing on the charges, the board may suspend the employee’s pay, before the determination on the charges, 30 days after the employee requested the hearing.
- Provide that provisions involving classified employee discipline only apply to districts that have not incorporated the merit system (i.e., have not adopted a personnel commission, as specified). (EC §§ 45113 et seq. and §§ 88013 et seq.)
- Requires a notice of disciplinary action to contain a statement in ordinary and concise language of the specific acts and omissions upon which the disciplinary action is based; a statement of the cause of the action to be taken; and, if there is a claim that an employee has violated a rule or regulation of the employer, the notice shall set forth the rule or regulation. The provision also describes when a notice is insufficient and the consequences when a notice violates the provision’s requirements. (EC § 45116 and § 88016)
- Establishes the Education Employer-Employee Relations Act (EERA), which provides a statutory framework under California law governing employer-employee relations within the public schools (K-12) and CCC system and authorizing collective bargaining between school employers and their school employees, as specified. (Government Code (GC) 3540 et seq.)
- Establishes the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB), a quasi-judicial administrative agency charged with resolving disputes and enforcing the statutory duties and rights of public agency employers and employee organizations, but provides the City and County of Los Angeles a local alternative to PERB oversight. (GC §3541 et seq.)
ANALYSIS
This bill:
- Clarifies that the changes it makes to K-12 and CCC district classified employees regarding disciplinary proceedings also apply to the classified employees employed by county superintendents of schools.
- Removes a K-12 and CCC board’s authority to prescribe by rule or regulation cause for which the board can discipline a classified employee.
- Requires, instead, that an impartial third-party hearing officer paid by the district and jointly selected by the district and the employee union shall determine cause for which a district may discipline a classified employee.
- Retains the requirement that the board must make the determination of cause for discipline for any peace officer.
- Subjects the impartial third-party hearing officer’s determination, upon a duly served and filed petition, to judicial review pursuant to the standards of subdivision (a) of Section 1286.2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which generally provide that the court shall vacate an arbitration award procured by corruption, fraud, undue means, misconduct that substantially prejudiced the rights of the party, or other specified conduct of the arbitrator.
- Applies the requirement that an impartial third-party hearing officer, rather than the governing board, determine cause for discipline for classified employees of any joint-powers agency or regional occupational center or program, as specified.
- Eliminates references to the board’s ability to delegate its power to determine whether sufficient cause exists for disciplinary action against classified employees to an impartial third-party hearing officer pursuant to an MOU with the union and makes other conforming changes.
STAFF COMMENTS
- Need for the bill. According to the author’s office, “Classified employees are the lifeblood of a school — these employees drive our school buses, prepare and serve meals to children, and carry out essential office functions. They deserve the same due process rights as teachers. SB 433 promotes a more fair and equitable discipline system. Establishing impartial, third-party officers to arbitrate over disciplinary actions will protect the rights and liberties of classified school staff.”
- Merit vs non-merit districts. The merit system is a series of rules and procedures contained in statute governing classified school personnel. The merit system statutes are similar to those establishing the parameters for state and federal civil service. The merit system’s fundamental purpose is to ensure that employees are selected and promoted based on merit and without favoritism or prejudice.
The core principles of the merit system are as follows:
- Hiring and promoting employees by competitive examination.
- Providing fair compensation.
- Retaining employees on the basis of performance.
- Assuring equal and fair personnel practices to applicants and employees without regard to political affiliation, race, color, national origin, sex, age, disability, religious creed, and with proper regard for privacy and constitutional rights as citizens.
The requirements of this bill only apply to school and CCC districts not currently incorporating the merit system.
- Discipline and due process for classified school employees. Permanent classified school employees have a property interest in their jobs, which requires their school or CCC district to comply with due process elements before imposing discipline. The due process rights of classified employees include the following three components:
- Notice of charges. Classified employees have the right to be notified in writing of the charges against them. The document must set forth the “cause” for which the action is taken, and “…in ordinary and concise language, the specific acts or omissions upon which the disciplinary action is based…” In non-merit districts, classified employees cannot be subject to acts that occurred while the employee was on probation or that are over two years old.
- Right to respond orally and in writing. In a merit system school district, the governing board and its management agents impose discipline and must afford employees what is commonly referred to as a "Skelly" conference. Here the employee has the right to respond orally and in writing to the charges. The district's "Skelly" hearing officer is supposed to be an "objective official" from the district. An employee has the right then to appeal any imposed discipline to the personnel commission (or its hearing officer), whose findings are binding upon the employee and the district.
In non-merit districts, the governing board's management agents propose the disciplinary action, providing the employee with written charges and five (5) days to request a hearing. The Governing Board may hear the case or the parties may delegate the hearing to a hearing officer or arbitrator but "... the governing board's determination of the sufficiency of cause for disciplinary action shall be conclusive," unless there is binding arbitration in your contract.
- Right to representation. Classified employees have a right to be represented at all investigative meetings that could reasonably lead to discipline and any meeting to challenge the discipline.
- Arguments in support. The California School Employees Association writes, “Discipline appeal hearings for classified school employees are normally decided by school district or community college governing boards. These boards are typically the same body that voted on the initial disciplinary decision. It is unfair for the same board that took the initial vote to discipline an employee to also be the appellate body.
“SB 433 would require an impartial third-party hearing officer to determine on appeal if a permanent classified employee in a non-merit district should be subject to disciplinary action. The arbitrator would be selected from the State Mediation and Conciliation Service jointly by the district and labor union. The district would be responsible for paying for the arbitrator.
“This bill would provide parity because classified employees should not be denied fair appeal rights granted to teachers and most other public employees. SB 433 would still allow unions and districts to negotiate alternative appeal hearings in their collective bargaining agreements.”
- Arguments in opposition. The California School Boards Association writes, “Fundamentally, this measure removes all authority of a duly elected school board to render personnel decisions over the classified staff of the district. This is contrary to the spirit of local control and removes yet another layer of local school board governance authority and delegates that authority to an unelected entity.
“Currently, school districts negotiate how disciplinary appeals are handled and funded. In most cases the school district and the employee organization agrees to share the costs of the appeal. However, this measure proposes that the district shoulder the entirety of the cost, which can be in the thousands to tens of thousands of dollars per case. Additionally, it also mandates that the third-party hearing officer be selected jointly by the school district and employee representative. This will further add to the delay in resolving sensitive personnel matters as it could render many otherwise legitimate hearing officers being excluded because the district and employee’s representatives are unable to agree on a hearing officer. This would be further exacerbated in small school districts in rural areas where there may only be one or two hearing officers available.”
SUPPORT
California School Employees Association (sponsor)
American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees
California Federation of Teachers
California Labor Federation
California School Employees Association
California State Council of Service Employees International Union
OPPOSITION
Association of California Community College Administrators
California School Boards Association
-- END --
SENATE COMMITTEE ON LABOR, PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT AND RETIREMENT
Senator Dave Cortese, Chair
2023 - 2024 Regular
Bill No: SB 433 Hearing Date: April 12, 2023
Author: | Cortese | ||
Version: | March 21, 2023 | ||
Urgency: | No | Fiscal: | Yes |
Consultant: | Glenn Miles | ||
SUBJECT: Classified school and community college employees: disciplinary hearings: impartial third-party hearing officers
KEY ISSUE
Should an impartial third-party hearing officer, instead of a non-merit school (K-12) or community college (CCC) district’s governing board, determine cause for which a K-12 or CCC classified employee may be disciplined or dismissed?
ANALYSIS
Existing law:
- Requires that each person employed by a county superintendent of schools in a position not requiring certification qualifications and whose salary is paid from the county school service fund to be employed in accordance with rules and regulations governing disciplinary proceedings that apply to classified employees of a K-12 or CCC districts. (ED § 1311)
- Authorizes K-12 and CCC district classified employees to elect a merit (i.e., civil service) system for their district whereby the district’s board establishes a personnel commission and personnel director to administer personnel rules established in statute. (ED §§ 45220 et seq. and §§ 88050 et seq.).
- Establishes rules and regulations governing all K-12 and CCC classified personnel including those in non-merit districts (i.e., where a district has not established a merit system and the governing board retains direct decision authority over classified personnel issues). Key provisions related to the disciplinary process for classified employees do the following:
- Require K-12 and CCC district boards to prescribe written rules and regulations governing classified personnel management that must be printed and made available to classified service employees whom the district designates as permanent after serving a probationary period not to exceed the longer of six months or 130 days of paid service, or one-year for peace officer employees, as specified.
- Provide that a K-12 or CCC district may discipline their permanent classified employees only for cause as prescribed by board rule or regulation but also provides that the board’s determination of sufficiency of the cause for disciplinary action is conclusive.
- Require a district board to adopt rules of procedure for disciplinary proceedings that provide for the employees’ due process rights, as specified; places the evidentiary burden of proof on the board; and voids any contrary rule or regulation.
- Prohibit a district from imposing disciplinary action for any cause that arose prior to the employee attaining permanent status, or for any cause that arose more than two years before the district filed the notice of cause, unless the employee concealed or failed to disclose the cause when the employee reasonably should have disclosed the facts to the district.
- Clarify that a board continues to have authority to delegate disciplinary determinations to an impartial third party hearing officer, as specified, pursuant to a bargaining agreement but must retain its authority to review the hearing officer’s determination pursuant to Civil Procedure Code § 1286.2.
- Require a board to delegate cases involving disciplinary action against an employee for allegations of egregious conduct involving a minor, to an administrative law judge, as specified, and make the judge’s ruling binding on all parties.
- Prohibit the board, if the employee timely requests a hearing, from suspending the employee without pay or with reduced pay or from dismissing the employee before the board renders its decision at a hearing on the charges. (ED § 45113 and § 88013).
- However, the board may do so if an impartial third-party hearing officer finds at a preliminary (Skelly) hearing that the district demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the employee engaged in criminal or risky misconduct, as specified.
- If the board uses an impartial third-party hearing officer, as specified, to conduct the hearing on the charges, the board may suspend the employee’s pay, before the determination on the charges, 30 days after the employee requested the hearing.
- Provide that provisions involving classified employee discipline only apply to districts that have not incorporated the merit system (i.e., have not adopted a personnel commission, as specified).
(ED §§ 45113 et seq. and §§ 88013 et seq.)
- Requires a notice of disciplinary action to contain a statement in ordinary and concise language of the specific acts and omissions upon which the disciplinary action is based; a statement of the cause of the action to be taken; and, if there is a claim that an employee has violated a rule or regulation of the employer, the notice shall set forth the rule or regulation. The provision also describes when a notice is insufficient and the consequences when a notice violates the provision’s requirements. (ED § 45116 and § 88016)
- Establishes the Education Employer-Employee Relations Act (EERA), which provides a statutory framework under California law governing employer-employee relations within the public schools (K-12) and community college system and authorizing collective bargaining between school employers and their school employees, as specified. (Government Code 3540 et seq.)
- Establishes the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB), a quasi-judicial administrative agency charged with resolving disputes and enforcing the statutory duties and rights of public agency employers and employee organizations, but provides the City and County of Los Angeles a local alternative to PERB oversight (GC §3541 et seq.).
This bill:
- Clarifies that the changes it makes to K-12 and CCC district classified employees regarding disciplinary proceedings also apply to the classified employees employed by county superintendents of schools.
- Removes a K-12 and CCC board’s authority to prescribe by rule or regulation cause for which the board can discipline a classified employee.
- Requires, instead, that an impartial third-party hearing officer paid by the district and jointly selected by the district and the employee union shall determine cause for which a district may discipline a classified employee.
- Retains the requirement that the board must make the determination of cause for discipline for any peace officer.
- Subjects the impartial third-party hearing officer’s determination, upon a duly served and filed petition, to judicial review pursuant to the standards of subdivision (a) of Section 1286.2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which generally provide that the court shall vacate an arbitration award procured by corruption, fraud, undue means, misconduct that substantially prejudiced the rights of the party, or other specified conduct of the arbitrator.
- Applies the requirement that an impartial third-party hearing officer rather than the governing board determine cause for discipline for classified employees of any joint-powers agency or regional occupational center or program, as specified.
- Eliminates references to the board’s ability to delegate its power to determine whether sufficient cause exists for disciplinary action against classified employees to an impartial third-party hearing officer pursuant to an MOU with the union and makes other conforming changes.
- Provides that if the Commission on State Mandates finds the bill results in state mandated costs to local agencies and school districts, the state shall make required reimbursements pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
COMMENTS
1. Need for this bill?
According to the author,
“Under current law for non-merit districts and community colleges, the governing board conducts a hearing if an employee exercises their right to challenge disciplinary action taken against the employee by the district.
This deprives many classified employees of a fair appeal because governing boards typically vote to take the initial disciplinary action. It is unfair for the same board that voted to discipline an employee to also be the appellate body. This is also contrary to how discipline appeals for most other public employees, including teachers, are determined.”
2. Proponent Arguments
According to the sponsor,
“Discipline appeal hearings for classified school employees are normally decided by school district or community college governing boards. These boards are typically the same body that voted on the initial disciplinary decision. It is unfair for the same board that took the initial vote to discipline an employee to also be the appellate body.”
3. Opponent Arguments:
According to the California School Boards Association,
“This bill would delete a school district’s authority to make the ultimate disciplinary action against a classified staff person and place it into the hands of an impartial third-party hearing officers to determine whether sufficient cause exists, unless the staff person is a licensed peace officer. It would also require school districts to fund the costs associated with obtaining a disciplinary ruling for cause from an impartial third-party hearing officer and jointly selected by the district and union.
Fundamentally, this measure removes all authority of a duly elected school board to render personnel decision over the classified staff of the district. This is contrary to the spirit of local control and removes yet another layer of local school board governance authority and delegates that authority to an unelected entity.”
4. Dual Referral:
The Senate Rules Committee referred this bill to the Senate Labor, Public Employment and Retirement Committee and the Senate Education Committee for review.
5. Related/ Prior Legislation:
AB 472 (Wicks, 2023) would require school and community college districts to pay a classified employee upon returning to service for the district for the period of an involuntary leave of absence after the proceedings of a charge of a criminal offense, investigation, or job-related administrative determination are found in favor of the employee. The Assembly Rules Committee referred the bill to the Assembly Public Employment and Retirement Committee, which passed the bill, and to the Assembly Education Committee, where it is currently awaiting a hearing.
AB 2413 (Carrillo), Chapter 913, Statutes of 2022, prohibited school and community college districts from suspending, demoting, or dismissing without pay a permanent, classified employee who timely requests a hearing on the charges against the employee before a decision is rendered on the matter.
AB 275 (Medina), Chapter 556, Statutes of 2021, reduced the probation period for classified community college employees in non-merit districts from one year to the longer of 6 months or 130 days of paid service.
AB 486 (Assembly Education Committee), Chapter 666, Statutes of 2021, the annual K-12 education policy omnibus bill, included changes under ED § 45113 regarding probation periods for school peace officer and public safety dispatchers.
AB 2609 (Medina, 2020) was substantially the same as AB 275 (Medina, 2021). The Assembly Higher Education committee held the bill.
AB 1353 (Wick), Chapter 542, Statutes of 2019, reduced the maximum length of the probationary period for K-12 classified school employees working in non-merit based districts from one year to a period not exceeding six months or 130 days of paid service, whichever is longer.
SUPPORT
California School Employees Association (Sponsor)
AFSCME
California Labor Federation
California State Council of Service Employees International Union (SEIU California)
OPPOSITION
California School Boards Association
-- END --
Discussed in Hearing
2MIN
Senate Floor
2MIN
Assembly Floor
44SEC
Assembly Floor
11MIN
Assembly Standing Committee on Higher Education
14MIN
Assembly Standing Committee on Public Employment and Retirement
5MIN
Senate Floor
10MIN
Senate Standing Committee on Labor, Public Employment and Retirement
Bill Author
Bill Co-Author(s):